HFIA03725U FILO, Module 3: Classical Philosophical Problem: Happiness

If there should be one important thing in life, it is probably happiness. Nothing seems so intuitively essential. This importance is not restricted to the private sphere. It is a collective affair too. The American Declaration of Independence made the pursuit of happiness an inalienable right. The French revolutionaries were inspired by happiness, Saint-Just famously declaring that “happiness is a new idea in Europe” in 1794.

Happiness novelty is therefore old. But new developments have occurred over the last thirty years. Studies have blossomed on happiness, life-satisfaction and subjective well-being. Some show that, despite a material comfort on the rise, we have not become happier. Illustrating the old adage “money can’t buy happiness”, they reveal a lack of correlation between affluence and happiness. This phenomenon is named the ‘Easterlin paradox’ or ‘happiness paradox’ after Richard Easterlin who was the first to highlight this disconnection between income and life-satisfaction in industrialized countries.

In addition, these studies open a new and challenging field of research incarnated most notably by the “Economics of Happiness” (e.g., Bruno Frey, Richard Layard, Yew-Kwang Ng). Economists have not been alone to take an interest in the topic. Psychologists have been playing an important part in the research (Edward Deci, Edward Diener, Daniel Kahneman, Daniel Gilbert, Richard Ryan, Martin Seligman). Acute debates have sprung concerning the proper meaning of happiness.

This rising concern for happiness in both economics and psychology constitutes the seminar’s backbone. Due to the importance of the claims conveyed by the literature (economic growth as a delusion), it seems important to investigate the potential political consequences. Seminar’s general objective is twofold: (1) to add depth to the current debates in economics and psychology by replacing them in the division between the main conceptions of happiness: hedonia (Jeremy Bentham, part of the utilitarian movement), eudaimonia (Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Amartya Sen), subjective well-being and mood theory (Daniel Haybron); (2) to critically engage the implications for our institutions (e.g., in terms of welfare measurement or architecture of choice). In that regard, the seminar will show that happiness raises questions about strategic interaction, axiological pluralism and state paternalism.