Skip to main content
Log in

Happiness, morality, and politics

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The idea that politics should promote the happiness of the population is rather common in the community of happiness researchers. This political view is sometimes based on the happiness principle, the fundamental ethical view that we have a strong moral reason to do what we can to maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering in the world. The first main purpose of this paper is to investigate (1) what role this principle play in ethics as a whole, how it should be weighed against other moral considerations, and (2) how exactly it should be understood, i.e. which possible version of the principle that is most plausible. This is the only way to arrive at well-founded theory of the fundamental moral (and political) significance of happiness and suffering (an “ethics of happiness and suffering”). The idea that politics should promote happiness is sometimes accompanied by the notion that we should introduce some kind of happiness index, and that it is a central goal of politics to maximize the value of this index. The second main purpose of this paper is to examine this suggestion. I will first ask (3) how such an index should be constructed, assuming that it might be a good idea to construct an index in the first place. I assume that an index of this kind cannot be plausible unless it incorporates a number of moral considerations, and that (3) is very closely related to (2). I will then ask (4) whether the suggestion is plausible, or whether there are better ways to put a politics of happiness into practice, e.g. to simply apply the knowledge we have about the determinants of happiness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are also a number of happiness researchers who reject these ideas; cf. de Prycker 2010 for a brief overview.

  2. Should we also be concerned with equality between groups? I think not. In practice, we often need to concern ourselves with group inequalities, but this is mainly because some inequalities between individuals are caused by social injustices, and because it is a more manageable political goal to try to reduce the latter. But we should also be concerned with inequality within groups.

  3. Depending on how it is constructed, it might also (if used on the local level) be used to identify those populations (municipalities, groups) that are least happy and thus most in need of support (i.e. as a basis for resource allocation), as well as for research purposes, e.g. to learn more about the effects of large-scale social factors on happiness.

  4. If this view on the weighing of happiness is adopted, at least three alternative views are rejected, namely: (1) The utilitarian idea each improvement of a certain magnitude should be regarded as equally valuable regardless of where on the scale it occurs. (2) The idea that once a certain level (e.g. “normal” or “acceptable” happiness) has been attained, further improvements are worth nothing from a political perspective. Politics should do nothing for those who have reached this level (and who can be expected to stay on this level). (3) Improvements beyond normal happiness still have value, but they are worth less (from a political perspective) than improvements below this level (cf. Brülde forthcoming).

References

  • Anderson, D., Cavalier, R., & Covey, P. K. (1996). A right to die? The Dax Cowart case. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius, G. (2000). Future generations: A challenge for moral theory. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brülde, B. (2007a). Happiness and the good life: Introduction and conceptual framework. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brülde, B. (2007b). Happiness theories of the good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 15–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brülde, B. (forthcoming). Health, disease and the goal of public health. In A. Dawson (Ed.), Public health ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • De Prycker, V. (2010). Happiness on the political agenda: Pros and cons. Journal of Happiness Studies. (her contribution to this special issue). doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9205-y.

  • Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (2008). Happiness: A revolution in economics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. (1979). Is unhappiness morally more important than happiness? Philosophical Quarterly, 29, 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayerfeld, J. (1999). Suffering and moral responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NEF (New Economics Foundation). (2004). A Well-being Manifesto for a Flourishing Society (http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?PID=193).

  • NEF (New Economics Foundation). (2006). The (un)Happy Planet Index: An index of human well-being and environmental impact (http://www.happyplanetindex.org/learn/download-report.html).

  • Nozick, R. (1989). The examined life: Philosophical meditations. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, R. (1979). The moral import of evil: On counterbalancing death, suffering, and degradation. Stockholm: Akademilitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, J. (2005). Level and inequality of happiness in nations: Does greater happiness of a greater number imply greater inequality in happiness? Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1991/2002). ‘Equality or priority?’. In M. Clayton, & A. Williams (Eds.), The ideal of equality (pp. 81–125). Basigstoke: Palgrave.

  • Ryberg, J., & Tännsjö, T. (Eds.). (2004). The repugnant conclusion: Essays on population ethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (1996). Happy life-expectancy. A comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nations. Social Indicators Research, 39, 1–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R., & Kalmijn, W. (2005). Inequality-adjusted happiness in nations: Egalitarianism and utlitarianism married in a new index of societal performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 421–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Krister Bykvist and Valérie De Prycker, who have commented on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bengt Brülde.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brülde, B. Happiness, morality, and politics. J Happiness Stud 11, 567–583 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9207-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9207-9

Keywords

Navigation