Neuroethics

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 69–84 | Cite as

Happiness, Cerebroscopes and Incorrigibility: Prospects for Neuroeudaimonia

Original Paper

Abstract

Suppose you want to live a happy life. Who should you turn to for advice? We normally think that we know best about our own happiness. But recent work in psychology and neuroscience suggests that we are often mistaken about our own natures, and that sometimes scientists know us better than we know ourselves. Does this mean that to live a happy life we should ask scientists for advice rather than relying on our introspection? In what follows, we highlight ways in which the science of happiness could help us live happy lives, but we also argue that, in other ways, our navel gazing will remain indispensable.

Keywords

Happiness fMRI IAT Incorrigibility 

References

  1. 1.
    McConnell, Allen R., Elizabeth W. Dunn, Sara N. Austin, and Catherine D. Rawn. 2011. Blind spots in the search for happiness: Implicit attitudes and nonverbal leakage predict affective forecasting errors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47: 628–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haybron, Daniel. 2011. Happiness. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/happiness. Accessed 29 June 2015.
  3. 3.
    Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan L.K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azar, Beth. 2008. IAT: fad or fabulous?. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/07-08/psychometric.aspx. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.
  6. 6.
    Rezaei, Ali R. 2009. Validity and reliability of the IAT: measuring gender and ethnic stereotypes. Computers in Human Behavior 27: 1937–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rutledge, Robb B., Nikolina Skandali, Peter Dayan, and Raymond J. Dolan. 2014. A computational and neural model of momentary subjective well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 12252–12257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett, Lisa Feldman. 2006. Valence as a basic building block of emotional life. Journal of Research in Personality 40: 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, Barrett Lisa, and Eliza Bliss-Moreau. 2009. Affect as a psychological primitive. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 41, ed. Mark P. Zanna, 167–218. Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russell, James A., and Lisa Feldman Barrett. 1999. Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Onion. 2010. Average Time Spent Being Happy Drops To 13 Seconds per Day. http://www.theonion.com/article/average-time-spent-being-happy-drops-to-13-seconds-17258. Accessed 26 June 2015.
  12. 12.
    Haber Suzanne, N. 2011. Neuroanatomy of reward: A view from the ventral striatum. In Neurobiology of sensation and reward, ed. Jay Gottfried, 235–262. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Craig, Bud. 2009. How do you feel — now? the anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Logothetis, Nikos K. 2008. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453: 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aguirre, Geoffrey K. 2014. Functional neuroimaging: technical, logical, and social perspectives. Interpreting Neuroimages: An Introduction to the Technology and its Limits, Special Report, Hastings Center Report 45: S8–S18.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kant, Immanuel. 1996. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant: practical philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On liberty. Library of Economics and Liberty archive. http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty4.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2014.
  18. 18.
    Rorty, Richard. 1970. Incorrigibility as a mark of the mental. Journal of Philosophy 67: 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poldrack, Russell. 2015. Stanford researcher scans his own brain for a year and a half. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I662Se4qWU. Accessed on 23 Dec 2015.
  20. 20.
    Daily Mail Reporter (author not specified). 2009. Girl born with half a brain is only person in world to see both fields of vision through one eye. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1200958/Girl-born-half-brain-person-world-fields-vision-eye.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
  21. 21.
    Figdor, Carrie. 2010. Neuroscience and the multiple realization of cognitive functions. Philosophy of Science 77: 419–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson, Frank. 1982. Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly 32: 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schier, Elizabeth. 2008. The knowledge argument and the inadequacy of scientific knowledge. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15: 39–62.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haybron, Daniel M. 2007. Do we know how happy we are? Nous 41: 394–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vincent, Nicole A. 2011. Legal responsibility adjudication and the normative authority of the mind sciences. Philosophical Explorations 14: 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neuroscience InstituteGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Neuroscience Institute, and College of LawAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophyTechnische Universiteit, DelftDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations