Happiness is at once challenging and straightforward to define. As a basic human emotion subject to irrational proclivities, happiness as an ideal has occupied an important place in philosophy. While early Enlightenment philosophers eschewed happiness as a passion similar to emotions like hope and fear, the pursuit of happiness has generally been understood as a positive when it comes to contemporary political philosophy.
The American Declaration of Independence, which represented a watershed moment in the history of political philosophy, famously enshrined the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right. How does happiness fit into the philosophy of modern countries in an increasingly connected world?
_____
This article is part of our supplement on happiness, which unites us all. For more happiness stories visit our dedicated page.
_____
To answer this question, we have to go back to basics.
“Happiness is difficult to define because it is subjective,” says Italian-born German philosopher Vittorio Hösle. “Everyone aspires to happiness but experiences happiness in different ways.”
Happiness is as much about our own improvement as it is about a collective societal good.
As such, it is far-reaching “to think of one general definition of what happiness is or should be”. When an individual experiences happiness, it is easy for that person to identify but it is much more difficult for a collective to define and indeed experience a prolonged state of happiness. For some people, overcoming unhappiness is the actual path to happiness in and of itself.
Hösle, considered by many to be the most eminent practitioner of continental philosophy, has been grappling with these issues for his entire professional career.
He is the Paul Kimball Professor of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame in the US state of Indiana, where he also served as the founding director of the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study.
Much of his philosophical output has focused on German idealism and a critical engagement with the work of Hegel. In the course of his illustrious career, Hösle has written more than 30 books in at least 16 languages and was appointed in 2013 to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences by Pope Francis.
What does a contemporary European philosopher think about happiness in governance?
From a political perspective, happiness can be “a source of legitimacy”, he says.
Since the industrial revolution, Hösle tells me, countries around the world have used increases in their gross domestic product (GDP) as a source of legitimacy, but such a metric is “irrational now when we aren't dealing with societies that have very little”. The endless quest for higher GDP figures necessitates a slew of negative side effects, chief among them being the continued destruction of the environment.
This issue has particular resonance for Hösle. His 1991 book Philosophy of the Ecological Crisis has become a foundational text for activists in environmental movements. For a philosopher passionate about the protection of the environment and clear-eyed about the concrete threat to our planet, shifting priorities from increased GDP to the happiness of society is a welcome change in governance.
While this might have been a rational development when resources were limited, in today’s global market of abundance, GDP is no longer the metric of legitimacy it once was.
Therefore, governments have been focused to find new sources of legitimacy. In Hösle’s view, the happiness of the population is a legitimate metric, but it includes its own challenges, noting that “one can't buy happiness”.
While Bhutan and Denmark receive attention as being the happiest nations on the planet, there is not one simple way that governments can mandate happiness. Happiness is a notoriously subjective emotion, and so governments that wish to increase the level of happiness in their societies should follow general guidelines.
To pursue happiness, basic necessities such as health care and a quality of living must be realised. You can’t focus on happiness if you are facing the elements.
“We should think about happiness with regard to things that are intrinsically good,” he says.
“If one’s happiness is dependent on something that inflicts harm on others or society, then it is beyond the pale of what government can mandate.”
In the course of our discussion about happiness, it became clear that Hösle’s perspective on the philosophy of happiness hinges implicitly on the fact that achieving happiness is essentially an intellectual endeavour.
“We need a minimal amount of wealth to ensure that our needs are cared for but beyond that material goods can't buy happiness themselves,” he says.
Citing a recent survey that found women in Albania were among the happiest in Europe despite Albania being one of the continent's poorer countries, Hösle argues that happiness is in the eye of the beholder, but philosophy can help us understand what makes us happy.
Philosophy’s main tasks, according to the professor, are understanding the world around us and confronting the problems contained in it.
When it comes to society, there are many factors that affect the population’s happiness including, but not limited to architecture, urban planning, educational quality, design and transport. The factors are nearly endless. Indeed, quality of life and its bearing on happiness is now a popular field around the world.
As such, governments can “mandate” happiness by safeguarding the pursuit of happiness for the individual as long as that pursuit does not negatively affect society or other individuals.
The state must remain cognisant of the so-called “happiness paradox”, in which the pursuit of happiness becomes damaging. The more one strives for something, the more fleeting it becomes.
If we approach both individual and collective happiness as an intellectual pursuit, the result will be profound. Not only does the pursuit of happiness challenge how we interact with the world around us but the subjective definition of happiness raises questions about how we grapple with irrational and rational emotions.
It might sound esoteric but there are concrete benefits to be had in this pursuit. For one, a government invested in the happiness of its people might divert more resources to constructive endeavours instead of the destructive quest for higher GDP. The result of this debate about happiness is a more productive society that is better in touch with its irrational and rational motivations. Even philosophers can agree that this is a good thing.
jdana@thenational.ae
On Twitter: @ibnezra