Metrics for subjective well-being are important tools which aid governments in determining how best to shape public policies that maximise their citizens’ happiness. In this paper, I will detail Martha Nussbaum’s critique of the normative conception of subjective well-being as well as her proposed solutions, and then relate them to the idea of ‘libertarian paternalism’ offered by Richard H. Thaler and Cass Sunstein.
In Who is the happy warrior? Nussbaum develops an understanding of happiness that moves beyond David Kahneman’s conception of subjective well-being, which is premised upon both hedonic pleasure and life satisfaction. Subsequently, Nussbaum offers how her model of happiness can be achieved in public policy. Nussbaum’s first critique
…show more content…
is that pleasure does not develop a full understanding of happiness – “pleasure is not identical with happiness, but it usually (not always) accompanies the unimpeded performance of the activities that constitute happiness” (342). For Nussbaum, there can be ‘bad pleasures’ and ‘good pain’. In the former, sexists and racists who find pleasure in their bad behaviour privilege their own individual welfare over societal welfare. On the other hand, there are individuals who find happiness in activities that preclude or limit pleasure, such as Wordsworth’s ‘happy warrior’. Thus, acts of patriotism and martyrdom which often incur significant personal cost of suffering and pain cannot be encapsulated in a model based upon a quantified state of pleasure. Hence, a degree of reflection or contemplation seems necessary in this eudemonic understanding of happiness. Furthermore, Nussbaum argues that although questions on life satisfaction appear to offer a more holistic concept of subjective well-being, they are often ambiguous and prone to aggregation. Since life satisfaction questions cause people to “aggregate experiences of many different kinds into a single whole” (339) – this implies an identical marginal rate of substitution for say, the emotional pain of losing a loved one to the physical pain of losing a tooth. Moreover, Nussbaum argues that questions on life satisfaction fail to account for ‘adaptation’. She notes that malnourished and under-educated women may self-report as healthy or satisfied despite counter-evidence such as the presence of diseases due to cultural norms and a lack of awareness. Accordingly, Nussbaum implies in both cases a societal welfare concern, i.e., limiting negative externalities and ensuring that all individuals are equally cared for. Nussbaum also offers an intriguing look on the importance of choice in regards to happiness that is accompanied by suffering. Without choice, any satisfaction felt (as in the example of malnourished women above) without pleasure is immaterial. Therefore, Nussbaum advocates for public policy to be driven by ten capabilities that citizens should be able to pursue and fulfil if they choose to, such as “life,” “bodily health…” and “play” (Appendix 2). This preservation of choice in public policy is similarly espoused in the idea of ‘libertarian paternalism’ by Richard H.
Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2003). They dismantle the idea that libertarianism and paternalism is oxymoronic, and advocate for a public policy that maintains freedom of choice whilst guiding people towards choices that maximise their welfare. Accordingly, Thaler and Sunstein assert that the oxymoronic misunderstanding arises from the false assumption of rational choice – that people always make choices in their best interest. Furthermore, they argue that there are two misconceptions: viable alternatives to paternalism and that paternalism always involves …show more content…
coercion. Firstly, Thaler and Sunstein claim that organisations or agents often make choices that affect the choices of others, wither in the private or public sphere. For example, Valentine Dining must decide how to order the food it prepares each day. Despite the appearance of paternalism that guides the ordering of food in a way that leaves those dining there better off, i.e., putting the fruits before the dessert, the other strategies available – random or malicious ordering – are no better. Secondly, they contend that in the same example, there is no coercion involved in choosing to order the fruits before the dessert, since an individual who desires dessert is not precluded from getting it (freedom of choice is preserved). Additionally, Thaler and Sunstein are aware that individuals often make inferior choices due to imperfect information, and that revealed preferences are not equivalent to welfare, inevitably necessitating paternalism. Following, they suggest the libertarian paternalist to make a cost-benefit analysis and failing that, present three possible approaches that promotes welfare without “unreliable guesswork” (178). To what extent is Nussbaum’s understanding of subjective well-being supported by libertarian paternalism?
Her capability approach undoubtedly preserves choice in a system that allows for the flourishing of that choice, without elements of prescription or preclusion. For example, if my idea of a good life includes God, the state should protect my opportunity to follow my religion without forcing others to do the same. However, libertarian paternalism may involve an unfounded nudge towards choices that may not fully understand an individuals’ reflective reasoning behind those same choices – for instance, a person that chooses a slice of fruit over a cup of ice-cream because he/she is against ice-cream manufacturing practices. Likewise, Nussbaum’s ‘happy warrior[s]’ choose lives often riddled with pain and suffering – an activist starving for a
cause? In conclusion, Nussbaum’s criticism of normative means of viewing subjective well-being or happiness may align with the idea of libertarian paternalism in how they preserve choice. Nevertheless, Nussbaum believes that flourishing has a eudemonic element, and in this aspect, a policy guided by libertarian paternalism may not offer much contemplation and reflection.
In contrast to Aristotle, Roko Belic’s documentary “Happy” provides a fresh perspective that takes place far more recently. The film sets out to similar goals of Aristotle in defining the nature of happiness and exploring what makes different people happy in general. Unlike Aristotle, however, the film’s main argument refers to makes people happier. In this case, the film argues that merely “doing what you love” is what leads to happiness (Belic). The argument itself appears oddly self-serving, considering that message is what underlines the foundation of happiness, yet there is a subliminal message that a simpler lifestyle is what leads to what the film is trying to convince you of. The message itself is obviously addressed to Americans, considering
Begley introduces sources such as Ed Diener, a University of Illinois psychology professor, who has studied happiness for twenty-five years, to further the point of her claim. In the article, she accounts an interaction Diener had with Scotland's Parliament and business leaders on the value of using traditional measures to compare what policies makes the country happiest. The Scottish were all in favor of increasing policies that increased wellbeing, but not because they make people happier. "They said too much happiness might not be a good thing, they like being dour, and didn't appreciate being told they should be happier" (555). Diener later concludes that levels of happiness coincide with longer, healthier, relationships. He contrasts this conclusion with an article he cowrote with, stating “once a moderate level of happiness is achieved, further increases can sometimes be detrimental to income, career success, education, and political participation” (556). Diener believes that negative emotions make you “more analytical, more critical, and more innovative” to help direct your thinking. Diener gives much evidence and experience towards Begley’s claim of happiness not being the best for you. Another source Begley uses to back up her claim that
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. "On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of
In today’s society, these themes are still dominant. While some view freedom as a responsibility, others take advantage of the privilege. Those with a survival of the fittest attitude do what they want, when they want, in order to get what they want. People with individual conscience believe they have the privilege to do what is right, whether it be for themselves or for others. Unfortunately, those who search for freedom are usually seeking it from those who take advantage of it. While freedom comes with a cost, every American should be able to enjoy their own freedoms and liberties without anyone restricting them.
Happiness plays an important and necessary role in the lives of people around the world. In America, happiness has been engrained in our national consciousness since Thomas Jefferson penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson). Since then, Americans have been engaged in that act: pursuing happiness. The problem however, as Ray Bradbury demonstrates in his novel Fahrenheit 451, is that those things which make us happy initially may eventually lead to our downfall. By examining Guy Montag, the protagonist in Fahrenheit 451, and the world he lives in we can gain valuable insights to direct us in our own pursuit of happiness. From Montag and other characters we will learn how physical, emotional, and spiritual happiness can drastically affect our lives. We must ask ourselves what our lives, words, and actions are worth. We should hope that our words are not meaningless, “as wind in dried grass” (Eliot).
If a human being is a material composite substance, she does not have freedom in the libertarian sense. (3,4)
Many people value the tangible over the complex. However, viewing the world solely through this definite lens is an oversimplification. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We explores this flaw in a society founded solely upon its government’s definition of the “ultimate happiness.” To reach utopia, it eliminates inefficiency, crime, and despondency, by promoting state-led happiness. Despite these admirable goals, the One State’s methods sacrifice freedom, individualism, and, ironically, happiness itself, ultimately failing its mission. Zamyatin explores the emotionless routine within the One State to assert that happiness cannot exist when controlled and rationalized.
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
He condemns the libertarian mindset that focuses so much on autonomy and individualism and calls for the creation of more just social structures and policies that address the structural causes of poverty. He is explicit in his rejection of an approach that relies too heavily on free markets: “We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market.”
Vallentyne, Peter, and Bas van der Vossen. “Libertarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 5 Sept. 2002,
Paternalism, Goldman says, is never to obstruct an individual’s deeper long-range preference. He starts off with a scenario in which an individual who wants to go to New York is about to accidentally get on board a train going to Boston. A good Samaritan, who we may assume is aware of the individual’s intentions of going to New York, pushes that individual off the train, displaying a form of paternalism. In Goldman’s terms, this scenario depicts justified paternalism because it only sacrificed the individual’s immediate autonomy in order to preserve his deeper long-range preference. In this situation the individual only acted the way he did (board the train to Boston) due to ignorance. His intentions were always the same as his long-term preference, of going to New York. But Controversy arises when an individual’s immediate preferences don’t match up with his or her long-term preferences. In one circumstance, the individ...
Happiness has three dimensions namely the pleasant life, the good life, and the meaningful life. The pleasant life is achieved if an individual learns to appreciate and value the basic pleasures like companionship, the natural environment and bodily needs. The first dimension of Seligman regarding happiness is in contradiction of Veenhoven’s idea of happiness that it is not merely pleasure and stimulation of the basic senses. However, Seligman argued that an individual can evolve from this initial stage if he or she can experience the good life which is realized through discovering one’s set of values and strengths, and employing them productively to advance lives. Modern theories of self-esteem established the idea of believing one’s abilities and worth or value. It is the extent to which one likes, accepts, and respects oneself (Masters & Wallace, 2011). Likewise, life is only genuinely satisfying if one is able to discover the value within. One of the most superlative ways of discovering this value is through nourishing strengths with the goal of contributing to the happiness of others. The concluding stage which is meaningful life pertains to the deep sense of fulfillment by employing the strengths not only for oneself. The theory reconciles two contradicting views of human happiness between individualistic approach and altruistic approach. The goal to take care of oneself and improve one’s set of potency is reunited with the value of sacrificing for greater function. (http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org). The last dimension of Martin Seligman’s theory which is meaningful life supports the concept utility of life that existence has a purpose and for others. The three fractions of Martin Seligman’s definition of happiness serve as one the frameworks of the development of happiness scale. It propels the idea of an escalating source
Bowman, James. "The Pursuit of Happiness." The American Spectator. N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.