Happiness in the sense of something generally considered intrinsically desirable may be semantically/conceptually analysed as follows:
A fairly generalized, well-established, longer-term feeling, attitude, state of mind, mindset, outlook, way of being in the world characterized by a sense of satisfaction, peace of mind, contentment with oneself and one’s situation in the world, and enjoyment of life.
Happiness is semantically/conceptually (not just empirically/causally) associated with:
Being hopeful, optimistic, glad, cheerful, lighthearted, buoyant, joie de vivre, joy, serenity, tranquility, calm, inner fulfillment, satisfaction, sense of self-worth, feeling resilient, competent, capable, meaning in life, equanimity, acceptance, reconciliation, sensuous or even sensual delight, being able to relax, have fun, laugh.
Psychic states which, when longer-term or chronic, are opposed (semantically, not just empirically) to happiness are:
Anxiety, fear, depression, grief, ruminating, obsessing, brooding, gloom, hopelessness, apathy, boredom, anger, hatred, self-annoyance, shame, guilt, jealousy, envy, bitterness, resentment, feeling deprived, mistreated, unappreciated, unloved, put down, humiliated, oppressed, insecure, frustrated, being reactive, rigid, narrow, pain, hunger, tiredness.
‘Happiness’ has some semantic association with uses of ‘happy’ signifying felicitous, lucky, apt.
Happiness in children is a kind of spontaneous, carefree pleasure in life shielded from the harsher realities. In adults happiness is achieved despite acquaintance with, and personal experience of, misfortune, mistreatment and the responsibility of earning a living.
The notions of happiness associated with belief in heaven or paradise (or even nirvana) largely fit with the analysis given, but assume a more intense, unbroken, never-ending state surpassing earthly happiness. Heavenly or paradise happiness offers great beauty, joy, peace, brotherly love, reunion with (or at least merging with) loved ones, lack of all pain, conflict, deviousness, injustice, having innocent delight, sensuous even sensual delight – at least for men (Islam – houris). This idealized view of happiness, though consoling to many, may actually be a barrier to attainment of earthly happiness. Religious or ideological consolation, though a crutch, defence mechanism, support, and some comfort, offering hope, does not always bring happiness – there is still psychological turmoil, bitterness, anger, etc. – not mellowness and love in the heart for all. The notion of heavenly, paradise, or utopian happiness may reflect an immature desire for a mythical happy childhood where you are always loved and everyone thinks you are wonderful and special. Focus on attaining a perfect lover/partner (or Jesus, God, Buddha, Muhammad, Marxist utopia) may block you from appreciating valuing and embracing the real human lover/partner who is available to you but has flaws and deficiencies not fitting your ideal or fantasy.
Happiness means you are better able to withstand the inevitable misfortunes, mistreatment, lack of appreciation, rejection. It is unrealistic, though, to suppose that a happy person will not be distressed by setbacks even severe ones. A religious fanatic might happily die a martyr’s death for his cause yet even he might be devastated by learning his wife is unfaithful or that his child rejects his political/religious beliefs. Some calamities are enough to disrupt the happiness of almost all mortals: Being tortured or maimed, having a child murdered, learning at a fairly young age you have a terminal illness, becoming seriously disabled, the partner you love deserts you for someone younger, better looking, with more money or status (who is not, however, more talented, qualified, or with a better character), being continually ridiculed, humiliated, bullied, or denied basic rights.
Happiness (earthly) does not mean being immune from pain and unpleasant feelings. Rather it means being able to recover more quickly from grief, anger, anxiety, fear, jealousy, disappointment, and not be completely demoralized, undermined, devastated. When we say a couple are happily married it does not mean they never experience conflict or irritation with one another, are never attracted to someone else. Likewise, an unhappy, depressed person can still experience some pleasures, e.g. eating chocolate, making love, listening to music. A person can be happy despite having a lifelong painful affliction, e.g. periodic gut ache, migraine, but the pain is still disruptive, distracting, frustrating, immobilizing, unpleasant when it occurs. Even when the pain is severe, though, the happy person finds some comfort and consolation to hang onto.
Because of differences in genes, childhood training, acquired desires, temperament, disposition, personality, and traits there are different levels of happiness/unhappiness among people in very similar circumstances. Some are psychologically better equipped than others to cope with setbacks or distress. People do not all experience the same level of distress within the same setback or adverse situation. Nevertheless, even those who have a physical or mental disability, come from a relatively disadvantaged background, and are not particularly good looking or talented can work at cultivating happiness.
It is dishonest and hypocritical, however, to pretend that happiness depends mostly on your own inner character, own efforts, activities, mental training, positive attitude, and will power, and does not/should not depend on ‘external’, sometimes material conditions. Of course money does to some extent buy you happiness otherwise why do so many intelligent, well-read, sensitive people pursue it and once obtained hang onto it? Again, if money/wealth were merely a ‘convenience’ as some affluent people claim and not an important factor in their happiness, why would they object to giving up some of their ‘conveniences’ (luxuries? privileges?) so that others, far worse off yet deserving, could have the basics? Why complain about the greed of the rich if poverty is no barrier to happiness?
‘External’ factors influencing happiness are contrasted with the agent’s own mental and physical efforts. They include: Safe clean place to live; pleasant surroundings; leisure time; access to health care; appreciation for one’s efforts and achievements; social status; security of income, accommodation, and food; reasonable health; reasonable appearance; supportive, sympathetic friends and family; romantic partner with whom there is mutual attraction, sympathy, and understanding; a job which is meaningful, worthwhile, and in keeping with one’s qualifications and training.
Clearly, a certain level of wealth or income is important in securing some of these basic ‘external’ conditions conducive to happiness. Inner satisfaction produced by one’s own intellectual, artistic, moral, and spiritual efforts will not be sufficient to generate happiness. Even monks and nuns who have taken vows of poverty enjoy some of these ‘external’ conditions for happiness by virtue of the wealth and standing of their order and the community which gives them food, shelter, respect, and tax relief. In Canada in 2009 if you do not own your own accommodation or have it provided for you (and have no assets nor expectation of receiving some in the near future, e.g. inheritance) it would be very difficult to be happy on an income of less than $1,000 per month even if you are in reasonable health, of reasonable appearance, are not materialistic, do creative or intellectual work, practice meditation, empathetic connexion with others, etc.
Why then does the dogma or myth persist, especially among the affluent, that money is not important for happiness, and that you shouldn’t need appreciation, recognition, support from others in your efforts to be happy – the truly enlightened person will be above such material considerations?
First, it is hard for some to admit that they are relatively privileged, that not everyone could have their level of wealth and privilege, and that they enjoy these benefits largely by good fortune or accident of birth, rather than because of their own hard efforts, strength of character, special talent, etc.
Second, people like to see themselves as noble and not materialistic, independent and not reliant on approval from others. Hence, it disturbs their self-image to admit their happiness is largely dependent on being well-off, living in a good neighborhood, etc.
Third, it is upsetting to those who believe in the personal development movement that success in life or happiness doesn’t just depend on your own individual effort and attitude – that we are to some extent at the mercy of external forces.
Fourth, pretending money is not important to happiness is an excellent way of rationalizing not giving up a surplus to those less fortunate.
Among the poor there is some support for the myth that money doesn’t matter for happiness because of a sour grapes mentality – ‘I don’t have much chance of getting money and I’m scared to make the effort to get it so I’ll pretend it’s not important.’
Commonsense and an honest look at human nature and one’s own suggest that some money, material and external support are necessary for happiness. However, far less is required than people commonly suppose.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Greed: Analysis of
‘Greed’ is partly evaluative. Cf. ‘I want a living wage’, ‘You want more than an average share’, ‘He is greedy’. The concept ‘greed’ (avarice/cupidity rather than gluttony) may be analysed as follows :
Wanting and trying to obtain or maintain a share of some benefit (e.g. income, sick leave, housing, job security, inheritance) for oneself (or family, professional association, or class) which is unfair and unnecessary for leading a good life (when looked at fairly reasonably, dispassionately, objectively).
Willingness to disregard or downplay the legitimate claims of others in order to gain or maintain the excessive share.
Willingness to use power (e.g. coercion, political influence, strikes, restrictive practices, not necessarily physical violence) and misrepresentation (not necessarily illegal or criminal acts) to gain or maintain the excessive share.
‘Ann wants an unfair, excessive share but is not greedy’* verges on the contradictory.
According to this analysis there is a selfish/self-centred/self-seeking aspect to greed. ‘Andrew is greedy but not selfish’* is semantically odd. There is also a materialistic aspect to greed. ‘Alice is greedy but not particularly interested in wealth, income, luxuries, her own pleasure or status, material comforts, or possessions’* is also semantically odd. Conceivably, all members of a community might pursue material wealth excessively yet share fairly equitably (not the same as equally) and safeguard the environment and animal rights. We might still call such a community greedy rather than just materialistic. Usually, though, greed is semantically (cf. merely empirically/causally) associated with seeking to gain or maintain an undue share for oneself (own family, class, etc.) at the expense of others. Greed may be characterized as excessive materialism combined with disregard for the material well-being of others. Think of situations where we tell children, ‘Don’t be greedy’.
It is sometimes claimed there is a kind of ‘greed’ which enriches others rather than deprives them. Thus, suppose an entrepreneur introduces a technological innovation which helps raise the standard of living of the whole community. The entrepreneur may take for himself a large,excessive portion of the increase in wealth yet still the others are significantly better off than before. But although the entrepreneur may be entitled to a larger share than average it does not follow that he is entitled to take most of the increase for himself. For one thing, others are involved in the production of increased wealth – the inventor, factory manager, factory workers, etc. For another, the average hard-working member of the society may still be short of some basics. Think of a sports or movie star getting $1m for promoting a product while factory workers who make the product are better off by 50 cents an hour.
Sometimes a greedy person knows he is taking an unfair, excessive share but he doesn’t care. He may excuse himself by saying, ‘It’s a dog-eat-dog world…the weak go to the wall… you have to look out for number one…’ etc. Sometimes a person may be unaware that he is being greedy – he takes his excessive, unfair share for granted, and being pampered or spoiled doesn’t see that it is unfair and beyond what is needful. Often, though, a person has some awareness that he is being greedy but he suppresses or represses this awareness because he accepts that greed is an ignoble, undesirable quality and finds it threatening to his view of himself and the world to admit that this mean quality is present in himself and those he likes and admires.
Greed is typically directed at obtaining or maintaining more income, wealth, pleasure, material goods, luxuries for oneself or family – a better house, car, restaurants, holidays, travel, fancy clothes, boat, better health care and education for the kids, etc. However, the motive for, or even the focus of, greed may not be financial gain, wealth, and all the comforts, pleasures, luxuries, treats, conveniences, and security that money can buy. Rather, the underlying greed may be for status, recognition, power, or control. Thus we speak of the lust for power, and of expensive items as status symbols.
How to unpack the evaluative notions of ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ involved in the analysis of greed? A sufficient condition for a share being unfair and excessive may be:
A share which is more than 8 times the Canadian 2009 per capita average (median or mean) or 20 times the global per capita average, and more than 4 times what is needed for a healthy, enriched (sic) lifestyle (shelter, sanitation, health care, food, leisure, some savings, education, security of person and property, opportunities for artistic, intellectual, spiritual, moral, athletic development).
According to the analysis of greed it is not just business executives who are greedy. Entertainment and sports stars, royalty, dictators, celebrities, heiresses, many lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, professors, senior administrators, successful writers and artists, and lottery winners also qualify as greedy. In 2009 trying to acquire or retain a $3m home, yacht, several luxury holidays per year, etc. counts as greed. ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ could be re-titled ‘Lifestyles of the Greedy’. In 2009 anyone earning more than $150,000 US per year or having assets totaling more than $3m without giving away the surplus to worthy causes (e.g. arts/sports foundations, scholarships for the poor, medical research) is greedy.
Most ordinary people are greedy in the sense that they aspire to an unfair, excessive share of wealth, and try to gain such a share given the chance. How many of us if we won $5m in a lottery would give away half to very worthy causes? Probably most people think they deserve more than the average. Most would like to have more than what they know in their hearts to be a fair share and one sufficient for a good life. Being greedy is compatible with having a sincere desire to help the poor and disadvantaged, protect the environment, support charities and the arts, being courteous, promoting liberal causes, even being a Marxist or socialist, and so on. Greed is distinct from criminal flaws – theft, torture, murder, assault. It fits in with more widespread, ordinary human failings – envy, anger, gluttony, decadence, debauchery, deceit, self-deception, hypocrisy, rationalization, selfishness, snobbery, lust, sloth, complacency, arrogance, dogmatism, bigotry, miserliness.
Does this mean that we should simply accept that greed is inevitable and an important factor in motivating artistic, intellectual, and business achievement, and bringing about a high standard of living and quality of life? No. Although we are to some extent biologically programmed to be greedy (also envious, violent, selfish, dogmatic, etc.), we are also programmed to be sharing, nurturing, considerate. We can raise children to think more of the well-being of others, and inner artistic, spiritual, intellectual development and attainment, rather than focus on success as becoming rich or famous and having a glamorous partner. This would be beneficial for individuals and society. We don’t need to achieve meaning and validation by being rich or famous (or having lots of kids, or asserting our own religion/ideology/lifestyle as supreme – the definite truth).
If you reflect calmly and dispassionately (engage in open critical thinking) on the notion of greed and human behaviour you come to some conclusions which most people will find upsetting/disturbing/threatening to underlying beliefs they have evolved as coping, defence mechanisms to make their world and themselves seem more congenial. Almost all human beings are potentially greedy, and the top 40% in affluent countries like Canada in 2009 are actually greedy. It is healthier to acknowledge unpleasant aspects of human nature (particularly one’s own nature) than to be in denial.
Wanting and trying to obtain or maintain a share of some benefit (e.g. income, sick leave, housing, job security, inheritance) for oneself (or family, professional association, or class) which is unfair and unnecessary for leading a good life (when looked at fairly reasonably, dispassionately, objectively).
Willingness to disregard or downplay the legitimate claims of others in order to gain or maintain the excessive share.
Willingness to use power (e.g. coercion, political influence, strikes, restrictive practices, not necessarily physical violence) and misrepresentation (not necessarily illegal or criminal acts) to gain or maintain the excessive share.
‘Ann wants an unfair, excessive share but is not greedy’* verges on the contradictory.
According to this analysis there is a selfish/self-centred/self-seeking aspect to greed. ‘Andrew is greedy but not selfish’* is semantically odd. There is also a materialistic aspect to greed. ‘Alice is greedy but not particularly interested in wealth, income, luxuries, her own pleasure or status, material comforts, or possessions’* is also semantically odd. Conceivably, all members of a community might pursue material wealth excessively yet share fairly equitably (not the same as equally) and safeguard the environment and animal rights. We might still call such a community greedy rather than just materialistic. Usually, though, greed is semantically (cf. merely empirically/causally) associated with seeking to gain or maintain an undue share for oneself (own family, class, etc.) at the expense of others. Greed may be characterized as excessive materialism combined with disregard for the material well-being of others. Think of situations where we tell children, ‘Don’t be greedy’.
It is sometimes claimed there is a kind of ‘greed’ which enriches others rather than deprives them. Thus, suppose an entrepreneur introduces a technological innovation which helps raise the standard of living of the whole community. The entrepreneur may take for himself a large,excessive portion of the increase in wealth yet still the others are significantly better off than before. But although the entrepreneur may be entitled to a larger share than average it does not follow that he is entitled to take most of the increase for himself. For one thing, others are involved in the production of increased wealth – the inventor, factory manager, factory workers, etc. For another, the average hard-working member of the society may still be short of some basics. Think of a sports or movie star getting $1m for promoting a product while factory workers who make the product are better off by 50 cents an hour.
Sometimes a greedy person knows he is taking an unfair, excessive share but he doesn’t care. He may excuse himself by saying, ‘It’s a dog-eat-dog world…the weak go to the wall… you have to look out for number one…’ etc. Sometimes a person may be unaware that he is being greedy – he takes his excessive, unfair share for granted, and being pampered or spoiled doesn’t see that it is unfair and beyond what is needful. Often, though, a person has some awareness that he is being greedy but he suppresses or represses this awareness because he accepts that greed is an ignoble, undesirable quality and finds it threatening to his view of himself and the world to admit that this mean quality is present in himself and those he likes and admires.
Greed is typically directed at obtaining or maintaining more income, wealth, pleasure, material goods, luxuries for oneself or family – a better house, car, restaurants, holidays, travel, fancy clothes, boat, better health care and education for the kids, etc. However, the motive for, or even the focus of, greed may not be financial gain, wealth, and all the comforts, pleasures, luxuries, treats, conveniences, and security that money can buy. Rather, the underlying greed may be for status, recognition, power, or control. Thus we speak of the lust for power, and of expensive items as status symbols.
How to unpack the evaluative notions of ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ involved in the analysis of greed? A sufficient condition for a share being unfair and excessive may be:
A share which is more than 8 times the Canadian 2009 per capita average (median or mean) or 20 times the global per capita average, and more than 4 times what is needed for a healthy, enriched (sic) lifestyle (shelter, sanitation, health care, food, leisure, some savings, education, security of person and property, opportunities for artistic, intellectual, spiritual, moral, athletic development).
According to the analysis of greed it is not just business executives who are greedy. Entertainment and sports stars, royalty, dictators, celebrities, heiresses, many lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, professors, senior administrators, successful writers and artists, and lottery winners also qualify as greedy. In 2009 trying to acquire or retain a $3m home, yacht, several luxury holidays per year, etc. counts as greed. ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ could be re-titled ‘Lifestyles of the Greedy’. In 2009 anyone earning more than $150,000 US per year or having assets totaling more than $3m without giving away the surplus to worthy causes (e.g. arts/sports foundations, scholarships for the poor, medical research) is greedy.
Most ordinary people are greedy in the sense that they aspire to an unfair, excessive share of wealth, and try to gain such a share given the chance. How many of us if we won $5m in a lottery would give away half to very worthy causes? Probably most people think they deserve more than the average. Most would like to have more than what they know in their hearts to be a fair share and one sufficient for a good life. Being greedy is compatible with having a sincere desire to help the poor and disadvantaged, protect the environment, support charities and the arts, being courteous, promoting liberal causes, even being a Marxist or socialist, and so on. Greed is distinct from criminal flaws – theft, torture, murder, assault. It fits in with more widespread, ordinary human failings – envy, anger, gluttony, decadence, debauchery, deceit, self-deception, hypocrisy, rationalization, selfishness, snobbery, lust, sloth, complacency, arrogance, dogmatism, bigotry, miserliness.
Does this mean that we should simply accept that greed is inevitable and an important factor in motivating artistic, intellectual, and business achievement, and bringing about a high standard of living and quality of life? No. Although we are to some extent biologically programmed to be greedy (also envious, violent, selfish, dogmatic, etc.), we are also programmed to be sharing, nurturing, considerate. We can raise children to think more of the well-being of others, and inner artistic, spiritual, intellectual development and attainment, rather than focus on success as becoming rich or famous and having a glamorous partner. This would be beneficial for individuals and society. We don’t need to achieve meaning and validation by being rich or famous (or having lots of kids, or asserting our own religion/ideology/lifestyle as supreme – the definite truth).
If you reflect calmly and dispassionately (engage in open critical thinking) on the notion of greed and human behaviour you come to some conclusions which most people will find upsetting/disturbing/threatening to underlying beliefs they have evolved as coping, defence mechanisms to make their world and themselves seem more congenial. Almost all human beings are potentially greedy, and the top 40% in affluent countries like Canada in 2009 are actually greedy. It is healthier to acknowledge unpleasant aspects of human nature (particularly one’s own nature) than to be in denial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)