A state of happiness or a happy life is subjective and difficult to define in a precise manner. Yet, most people will agree that a fundamental purpose of life is the pursuit of our and other people’s happiness. But, what is happiness?
Definitions have been attempted since ancient times by philosophers and more recently by psychologist and neuroscientists. For instance, Aristotle (384–322 BC) ethics defined happiness as made up of pleasure (hedonia) and a life well lived (eudaimonia), a definition close to that still used today by most psychologists – pleasure, meaningful and engaged. While neuroscience has focused on the neuroanatomy of pleasure (changes in brain activity associated with changes in reported happiness), it has also began researching the study of prospective consciousness a feature unique to human beings (the sole capable of anticipating the outcome of current choices).
Whatever definition one chooses, it is clear that we need to distinguish current states of mind (which can be manipulated with drugs or group activities) from feelings of long-term achievement, ranging in degree from content to intense, which are felt by individuals with different innate predispositions.
For instance, consider the state of mind of two elders in the presence of a beautiful young person. One elder may find it a source of happiness by remembering fondly his own youth while the other may feel miserable by thinking that, because of his age, he will never be able to date such a beauty again. Likewise, consider the fact that many people consider as their happiest days those lived under conditions of serious displeasure (e.g. war or disaster) simply because they remember more vividly the friendship lived during that ordeal.
So, a personal state of feeling happy depends on one’s personality and his happy memories in relation to specific circumstances, namely: health, friends, family, money, sex, love, freedom, safety, etc. Are these factors to be considered as means to happiness or as constituents of happiness itself? Possibly both!
When our brain produces a given state of happiness, it is being impacted by various factors that are conducive to happiness or unhappiness feelings. However, in the current state of knowledge it is not yet possible to understand why it reads and weights differently such signals. Likewise, we do not know how different individuals weight their own happiness in relation to that of others in their community. Nevertheless, we can influence his ideas and personality through education.
This led me to suggest that we distinguish the means or ends that can be confused with happiness itself from those primary means required to achieve the ends usually associated with happiness. For instance, in my blog on the six pillars of human happiness I selected capitalism as fundamental to create wealth and liberalism to achieve freedom. That is, I considered money and freedom as intermediary ends which are part of happiness.
This is important, if one is to design integrated policies aimed at improving human happiness. For instance, to achieve the material conditions needed for happiness, we selected a trinity made up of market capitalism, representative democracy and constitutional liberalism. While, for spiritual conditions, we selected a trinity of productive work, scientific methods and enlightened virtues. These are the ones necessary to produce the ingredients of happiness, be they education, health, freedom, peace, religion or love.
Showing posts with label enlightened virtues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enlightened virtues. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 June 2016
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
The ethics of capitalism
There is a never ending history of blaming capitalism for all evils in society. Vigilantes are always out there looking for market failures and externalities to "prove" the limitations or evils of capitalism.
The most recent accusation is that capitalism is responsible for obesity because the food industry is driven to profit from what Ken Rogoff called coronary capitalism.
The idea that capitalism promotes vice at the expense of virtue is historical nonsense. Otherwise, after 200 years of capitalism, western economies would now be dominated by casinos and brothels. Yet, these vice industries are still niche industries.
The ethic foundations of capitalism are not necessarily the same as the (protestant or other) ethics of the capitalist or the ethics in business. Business ethics is the study or practice of the good or right in a business setting. For instance, the responsibilities of a CEO in relation to the company’s stakeholders. Or whether in some industries managers need to preserve primitive hunting or predatory instincts.
The origins of freedom and individualism go back to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who argued that a human being uses his rational mind and free will to pursue his well-being and personal happiness. John Locke (1632-1704) extended these concepts to include the state of nature, natural law, natural rights, social contract, consent of the governed, and the right of property ownership. So, the ethics of capitalism must be discussed around the foundations of capitalism – namely, the ethics of private property, the profit motive and free competition - and not in terms of the social responsibilities of businessmen.
For Adam Smith and Hume the morality of capitalism resided mostly in the virtues of prudence and reciprocity, respectively. For Smith, the first to study capitalism, economics was still a moral science. Only after Marshall, did the prevailing view of economics as a positive science takes its roots based on the assumption that preferences are “given”. The assumption of utility maximization was replaced by wealth maximization and “greed” was adopted as an undisputable microeconomic assumption.
Despite Adam Smith’s demonstration that 'self-love', could be the greatest driver of wealth creation as long as it was restrained by market competition, law, and customary morals, today many sceptics still question either the morality of money-making or wish it to be unrestrained. Some qualify money-making as bad and enterprise as good, but these are truly the two sides of the same coin because the first measures the success of the second.
For Keynes, the distasteful aspects of capitalism would have to be endured until the accumulation of wealth loses its social importance. In his words: “Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight. (JMK, CW, IX, pp.329, 331)”.
Of course capitalism is not flawless. It is true that capitalism is affected by moral dilemmas, market failures and externalities, but these are the exception not the rule. It is also true that it may cause some unhealthy patterns in terms of consumption. But in market capitalism these imbalances are necessarily temporary; while they are bound to be perpetuated under other economic systems and government rule.
In fact the food industry provides a unique proof of this principle. As soon as the junk food became dominant and inefficient, a growing number of enterprising capitalists stepped in to offer all sorts of alternatives without any government intervention; ranging from the organic food industry to keep fit and health clubs.
Indeed if the fast-food industry still caters for so many people it is because of governmental failures rather than market failures. It is because of government failures that we have an ever growing number of families living on social security and low-cost dinners. It is because governments provide lousy school meals that children acquire unhealthy eating habits. And, it is also because of government´s inadequate funding for scientific research in food and health that we have so much voodoo science in what relates to healthy eating habits.
On the contrary, capitalism is part of the solution for these government failures. By competing to provide low income families with affordable and varied meals it facilitates the acquisition of good eating lifestyles.
That is really the beauty of market capitalism. Instead of raising regulatory barriers to protect the incumbents in the food industry competition ensures that they will be under permanent challenge. So, it corrects not only its own imbalances but also those created by devious as well as well-meaning paternalistic governments.
The most recent accusation is that capitalism is responsible for obesity because the food industry is driven to profit from what Ken Rogoff called coronary capitalism.
The idea that capitalism promotes vice at the expense of virtue is historical nonsense. Otherwise, after 200 years of capitalism, western economies would now be dominated by casinos and brothels. Yet, these vice industries are still niche industries.
The ethic foundations of capitalism are not necessarily the same as the (protestant or other) ethics of the capitalist or the ethics in business. Business ethics is the study or practice of the good or right in a business setting. For instance, the responsibilities of a CEO in relation to the company’s stakeholders. Or whether in some industries managers need to preserve primitive hunting or predatory instincts.
The origins of freedom and individualism go back to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who argued that a human being uses his rational mind and free will to pursue his well-being and personal happiness. John Locke (1632-1704) extended these concepts to include the state of nature, natural law, natural rights, social contract, consent of the governed, and the right of property ownership. So, the ethics of capitalism must be discussed around the foundations of capitalism – namely, the ethics of private property, the profit motive and free competition - and not in terms of the social responsibilities of businessmen.
For Adam Smith and Hume the morality of capitalism resided mostly in the virtues of prudence and reciprocity, respectively. For Smith, the first to study capitalism, economics was still a moral science. Only after Marshall, did the prevailing view of economics as a positive science takes its roots based on the assumption that preferences are “given”. The assumption of utility maximization was replaced by wealth maximization and “greed” was adopted as an undisputable microeconomic assumption.
Despite Adam Smith’s demonstration that 'self-love', could be the greatest driver of wealth creation as long as it was restrained by market competition, law, and customary morals, today many sceptics still question either the morality of money-making or wish it to be unrestrained. Some qualify money-making as bad and enterprise as good, but these are truly the two sides of the same coin because the first measures the success of the second.
For Keynes, the distasteful aspects of capitalism would have to be endured until the accumulation of wealth loses its social importance. In his words: “Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight. (JMK, CW, IX, pp.329, 331)”.
Of course capitalism is not flawless. It is true that capitalism is affected by moral dilemmas, market failures and externalities, but these are the exception not the rule. It is also true that it may cause some unhealthy patterns in terms of consumption. But in market capitalism these imbalances are necessarily temporary; while they are bound to be perpetuated under other economic systems and government rule.
In fact the food industry provides a unique proof of this principle. As soon as the junk food became dominant and inefficient, a growing number of enterprising capitalists stepped in to offer all sorts of alternatives without any government intervention; ranging from the organic food industry to keep fit and health clubs.
Indeed if the fast-food industry still caters for so many people it is because of governmental failures rather than market failures. It is because of government failures that we have an ever growing number of families living on social security and low-cost dinners. It is because governments provide lousy school meals that children acquire unhealthy eating habits. And, it is also because of government´s inadequate funding for scientific research in food and health that we have so much voodoo science in what relates to healthy eating habits.
On the contrary, capitalism is part of the solution for these government failures. By competing to provide low income families with affordable and varied meals it facilitates the acquisition of good eating lifestyles.
That is really the beauty of market capitalism. Instead of raising regulatory barriers to protect the incumbents in the food industry competition ensures that they will be under permanent challenge. So, it corrects not only its own imbalances but also those created by devious as well as well-meaning paternalistic governments.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Left and Right today
Now that capitalism is almost the only economic system worldwide (with a few bizarre exceptions in North Korea and Cuba) does it still makes sense to talk about left and right? Can we distinguish the various types of capitalism using the left and right categorization?
If one uses the left and right categorization to depict a spectrum of opinions that we may represent through a statistical distribution then it still makes sense to talk about the left and right tails of such distribution.
However, we should recall that this categorization originated during the French Revolution to designate where the pro-monarchy (right) and anti-monarchy (left) seated in the French National Assembly (parliament). Later this designation was generalized to other divisions over single issues. In particular, it was extended to describe those in favour of the status quo (conservatives) and those in favour of moderate/drastic reforms (progressives/ radicals).
Historically, the most important split in the XIX century was over the emerging economic system of capitalism. Since this new system affected most aspects of society, it no longer represented a single issue divide. It became a split over a portfolio of visions usually designated as ideologies until the collapse of communism in 1989.
Yet, once a portfolio of visions becomes too diversified, it loses its internal coherence and no longer can be represented by a single distribution with a left and right tail. If I pick a number of divisive issues in economics, politics or moral I may end up sometimes on the right and others on the left.
For example, one of the current raging debates in economics is over the question of government economic stimulus. Typically, the supporters of the status quo sit on the right and the interventionists sit on the left. However, the interventionists are also divided into two opposing camps over the use of pro-cyclical (fiscal austerity) and anti-cyclical (fiscal expansion) policies. Can we split these into left and right?
As an economist, I believe that government intervention must be always counter-cyclical, but should be used only to smooth extreme volatilities in the business cycle. So, with unemployment above 15%, when looking at the labour market, I find myself on the left side. But, with interest rates close to zero, when looking at the bond market, I find myself on the right side against further monetary easing. So, should I average these two distributions and become a centrist? Not really, because these two visions are not necessarily incompatible.
Likewise, I am a strong supporter of market capitalism as the main driver of progress. But it does not mean that I do not accept a limited role to other forms of capitalism like managerial capitalism or state capitalism. Can I grade their relative roles in terms of left and right? Clearly not.
In conclusion, in general terms, in the absence of a coherent portfolio of ideologies we no longer should characterize ourselves as leaning towards the left or the right. But, over single issue divisions one should not be afraid to sit on the tail of the distribution. Under this eclectic approach, do we risk becoming a weathercock turning opportunistically with the prevailing wind? Yes, but it is a risk that should be mitigated by a scrupulous respect for our values and it is a risk worth taking to enjoy the greater benefits of freedom and variety.
If one uses the left and right categorization to depict a spectrum of opinions that we may represent through a statistical distribution then it still makes sense to talk about the left and right tails of such distribution.
However, we should recall that this categorization originated during the French Revolution to designate where the pro-monarchy (right) and anti-monarchy (left) seated in the French National Assembly (parliament). Later this designation was generalized to other divisions over single issues. In particular, it was extended to describe those in favour of the status quo (conservatives) and those in favour of moderate/drastic reforms (progressives/ radicals).
Historically, the most important split in the XIX century was over the emerging economic system of capitalism. Since this new system affected most aspects of society, it no longer represented a single issue divide. It became a split over a portfolio of visions usually designated as ideologies until the collapse of communism in 1989.
Yet, once a portfolio of visions becomes too diversified, it loses its internal coherence and no longer can be represented by a single distribution with a left and right tail. If I pick a number of divisive issues in economics, politics or moral I may end up sometimes on the right and others on the left.
For example, one of the current raging debates in economics is over the question of government economic stimulus. Typically, the supporters of the status quo sit on the right and the interventionists sit on the left. However, the interventionists are also divided into two opposing camps over the use of pro-cyclical (fiscal austerity) and anti-cyclical (fiscal expansion) policies. Can we split these into left and right?
As an economist, I believe that government intervention must be always counter-cyclical, but should be used only to smooth extreme volatilities in the business cycle. So, with unemployment above 15%, when looking at the labour market, I find myself on the left side. But, with interest rates close to zero, when looking at the bond market, I find myself on the right side against further monetary easing. So, should I average these two distributions and become a centrist? Not really, because these two visions are not necessarily incompatible.
Likewise, I am a strong supporter of market capitalism as the main driver of progress. But it does not mean that I do not accept a limited role to other forms of capitalism like managerial capitalism or state capitalism. Can I grade their relative roles in terms of left and right? Clearly not.
In conclusion, in general terms, in the absence of a coherent portfolio of ideologies we no longer should characterize ourselves as leaning towards the left or the right. But, over single issue divisions one should not be afraid to sit on the tail of the distribution. Under this eclectic approach, do we risk becoming a weathercock turning opportunistically with the prevailing wind? Yes, but it is a risk that should be mitigated by a scrupulous respect for our values and it is a risk worth taking to enjoy the greater benefits of freedom and variety.
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
Listing Virtues and Vices
The pursuit of virtues and the avoidance of vices are important for the progress of humanity. Both sets of rules and personality traits are designed to improve humankind individually and collectively. Two important affiliated questions are how many rules or qualities we need and how to enforce them.
Fortunately, nowadays, the internet facilitates listing the inventory of such rules. For instance, this site lists a total of 650 virtues and 350 vices. Obviously, not everyone will agree with the classification of a given rule or trait as a virtue or a vice and many rules are correlated or are only variants of other rules. For this reason we need taxonomy to group and classify them.
Indeed, the Wikipedia entry for list of virtues is based on 5 categories defined in relation to their purpose, namely: self-control, self-efficacy, regard, respect and kindness. Others choose to select the top 5, 10 or whatever number they feel appropriate. What is undeniable is that such lists or taxonomies reflect both their historical context and their religious or philosophical roots.
In fact these are often outdated and prevail over a classification system based only on an empirical analysis of their contribution to the betterment of humankind. For instance, the Ten Commandments, The Hadiths, The Modes of Sattva and the Ten Perfections followed by Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, respectively, have many virtues in common but cannot explain the civilizational differences between their followers.
So, when picking up a list of virtues one must choose on the basis of their universality, longevity, and rationality. On the basis of the first two criteria we must certainly include Aristotle´s list of virtues and using the third criteria one must include lists based on the philosophy of enlightenment.
Aristotle defined a virtue as a balance point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait that lies not in the exact middle, but at a golden mean sometimes closer to one extreme than the other (see list here).
From the enlightenment philosophers we can build multiple lists ranging from the popular list of 13 virtues by Benjamin Franklin to Adam Smith´s analysis of the amiable, respectable and intellectual virtues discussed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Yet, some modern philosophers have associated the virtues of enlightenment with being tantamount to bourgeois virtues (e.g. McCloskey) or have criticized them for failing to include the Aristotle´s concept of mean (e.g. MacIntyre´s book After Virtue).
Following on Francis Wheen's defense of the principles of the Enlightenment against various strands of irrationalism in his book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World; we believe that it is possible and desirable to merge the ethics of Enlightenment and Aristotle. We will try to do so in future posts on specific virtues and come up with our own list of enlightened virtues.
Fortunately, nowadays, the internet facilitates listing the inventory of such rules. For instance, this site lists a total of 650 virtues and 350 vices. Obviously, not everyone will agree with the classification of a given rule or trait as a virtue or a vice and many rules are correlated or are only variants of other rules. For this reason we need taxonomy to group and classify them.
Indeed, the Wikipedia entry for list of virtues is based on 5 categories defined in relation to their purpose, namely: self-control, self-efficacy, regard, respect and kindness. Others choose to select the top 5, 10 or whatever number they feel appropriate. What is undeniable is that such lists or taxonomies reflect both their historical context and their religious or philosophical roots.
In fact these are often outdated and prevail over a classification system based only on an empirical analysis of their contribution to the betterment of humankind. For instance, the Ten Commandments, The Hadiths, The Modes of Sattva and the Ten Perfections followed by Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, respectively, have many virtues in common but cannot explain the civilizational differences between their followers.
So, when picking up a list of virtues one must choose on the basis of their universality, longevity, and rationality. On the basis of the first two criteria we must certainly include Aristotle´s list of virtues and using the third criteria one must include lists based on the philosophy of enlightenment.
Aristotle defined a virtue as a balance point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait that lies not in the exact middle, but at a golden mean sometimes closer to one extreme than the other (see list here).
From the enlightenment philosophers we can build multiple lists ranging from the popular list of 13 virtues by Benjamin Franklin to Adam Smith´s analysis of the amiable, respectable and intellectual virtues discussed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Yet, some modern philosophers have associated the virtues of enlightenment with being tantamount to bourgeois virtues (e.g. McCloskey) or have criticized them for failing to include the Aristotle´s concept of mean (e.g. MacIntyre´s book After Virtue).
Following on Francis Wheen's defense of the principles of the Enlightenment against various strands of irrationalism in his book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World; we believe that it is possible and desirable to merge the ethics of Enlightenment and Aristotle. We will try to do so in future posts on specific virtues and come up with our own list of enlightened virtues.
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Christmas, Family and Happiness
It is time to wish all my readers a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
If you are hurrying to buy the last present do not worry, the family reunion is more important than the presents. So, spare a moment to think about those who are alone or have no family or friends to visit over Christmas.
You may have heard this cliché many times. However, we must wonder why Christmas is so significant in bringing families together and why families are so important for human happiness. Here are some facts: A recent study on doing things together found evidence that: “The youngsters with mental health complaints ate less frequently with both parents than the youngsters in the comparison group. They also shared less activities and practiced less family rituals—union and life cycle—than the families of the youngsters in the comparison group, and showed a lower level of satisfaction in perceived family function.”
If you like lots of statistical analysis you can find here plenty o statistics related to life satisfaction and happiness. Community celebrations and extended families often correlate with happiness, but the facts are usually difficult to interpret. Therefore, if you are curious about happiness economics Wikipedia provides a simple introduction here.
Anyway, even if you think that ritual celebrations create a travel nightmare, limit your personal freedom and you cannot stand some boring relatives, try to be tolerant. You will find that tolerance is an important virtue to achieve happiness.
So, enjoy your holiday season!
If you are hurrying to buy the last present do not worry, the family reunion is more important than the presents. So, spare a moment to think about those who are alone or have no family or friends to visit over Christmas.
You may have heard this cliché many times. However, we must wonder why Christmas is so significant in bringing families together and why families are so important for human happiness. Here are some facts: A recent study on doing things together found evidence that: “The youngsters with mental health complaints ate less frequently with both parents than the youngsters in the comparison group. They also shared less activities and practiced less family rituals—union and life cycle—than the families of the youngsters in the comparison group, and showed a lower level of satisfaction in perceived family function.”
If you like lots of statistical analysis you can find here plenty o statistics related to life satisfaction and happiness. Community celebrations and extended families often correlate with happiness, but the facts are usually difficult to interpret. Therefore, if you are curious about happiness economics Wikipedia provides a simple introduction here.
Anyway, even if you think that ritual celebrations create a travel nightmare, limit your personal freedom and you cannot stand some boring relatives, try to be tolerant. You will find that tolerance is an important virtue to achieve happiness.
So, enjoy your holiday season!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
