But What is Happiness?

At the center of Disney's works, or, indeed, the works of many other artists, is the idea of a happy ending. It is therefore natural to first investigate what exactly happiness is, and how we ought to think about it. It is from our own concrete, well-defined notion of happiness that we can start to look at media with a critical eye, and find discrepancies between what we are told makes us happy, and what truly makes us happy. 

In the classical western philosophical canon, the major philosophical approchaes to happiness started in two schools: one is hedonism, and the other stoicism. For the hedonists, happiness is encapsulated in individual experiences of pleasure, joy, and generally positive states of mind. This is a coherent definition, and indeed, entire systems of ethics have been built upon this foundation. The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham shows us the logical extremes of the hedonistic view when he said that "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do." For Bentham, it was obvious that pleasure was the world's only good, and pain the only evil; if that is the case, we may as well base our entire ethics upon happiness, and simply seek to maximize it whatever the cost. 

The hedonistic interpretation naturally leads to a lifestyle of excess. If sex feels good, why not simply do it all day every day, and with everyone? If money is good, why not simply try to make more of it all the time? If consumer goods are good, why not simply buy more of them? In many ways, the hedonistic interpretation of happiness is embodied in the concept of homo economicus - an "economic man" that is seeking to maximize his capacity to consume. 

While I will not deny that sex feels great, that earning more money is better, and that buying the newest tech gadgets brings me great joy, I cannot, in all honestly, profess that these are the only things that make me happy. That is to say, while the hedonistic view is right about what is good, it is an incomplete description of humanity, based on an incomplete picture of human nature. For example, if material goods and physical pleasures are all there is to life, why do I feel great about myself when I managed to hit every single one of my planned workouts in a month? Or when I make a donation to my favorite charity? Economically, I have not gained anything through my donation, and physically, my body is hurting after all those workouts. It follows, from this introspection, that there is more to life than material pleasures. 

In contrast to hedonistic excess, we have stoic restraint. Instead of trying to find pleasurable experiences, the whole philosophy of stoicism instead focuses on how to find satisfaction in a difficult and challenging life. For the true stoic, happiness does not come from outside experiences, but rather truly comes from within. This insight is reflected in some of our most prominent cultural stereotypes, such as the "miserable rich person" and "happy poor person" tropes. Indeed, the important thing for stoics is not to feel good all the time, but rather to live a good life filled with meaning rather than pleasure. This idea would later influence philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, whose works are reflected in the Christian conception of the good life, which sees qualities such as temperance and fortitude as Cardinal Virtues that people should live by. This reflects the stoic way of thinking where a happy life is not one filled with pleasure, but rather a life of purpose lived by a person of character and virtue. 

We, therefore, see that the stoic conception of happiness, like its hedonistic counterpart, also generated influential conceptions of morality and virtue. Additionally, it should be evident at this point that the individual conceptions of happiness for persons must have both hedonistic and stoic components; that most persons are not capable of being truly satisfied with their lives through only pleasure or meaning alone. Furthermore, many of the goods that we primarily see as hedonistic may also have a stoic aspect. For example, we usually see money as the symbol of a materialistic way of living, but the billionaire who restrains his impulsive urges and spends his money investing in companies and generating value instead of buying a 400-foot long yacht is deriving pleasure from his investments, but not hedonistic pleasure. 

Personally, I see myself leaning more towards the stoic conception; perhaps 65% stoic and 35% hedonistic. The things most important to me in life are not materialistic; I would generally care more about if my work is making a positive impact on the world (or at least not a negative one) and if I actually like my day-to-day work, than if I am making slightly more or less (I would start to sell out at around a 20-30% pay increase though, depending on how much I need to compromise my morality). Moreover, I sincerely believe that there are qualities such as love, friendship, loyalty, and respect that cannot be easily translated into a dollar value. 

Before I end, I would like to note one final idea about happiness that is perhaps more important, and more relevant than both the hedonistic and stoic conceptions, and that is the liberal conception of happiness. Liberals holds that there is a plurality of goods in this world that rational, well-adjusted persons may choose from. E.g. you may prefer vanilla icecream while I like mango, but we can both understand that there is a plurality of flavors that people can reasonably enjoy. It is important to note that a pluralistic conception of happiness, and the associated morality, is not a relativistic one - there is no world in which your waffle is my icecream, just as there is no world in which slavery can be morally justified. 

By acknowledging that there exist different conceptions of the good life that can co-exist, and by providing people with the means necessary to persues their own visions of happiness, the liberal conception has created societies with the highest levels of satisfaction. If we look at surveys such as the World Happiness Report, we find that the top-ranking countries are those that embrace liberalism in all its dimensions. Countries such as Finland, Denmark, and Switzerland that not only ensure that there are little to no barriers to the choices of individuals, but also have large welfare programs that emancipate and empower their citizens.

So, what is happiness? It seems that it can be derived from both materialistic and non-materialistic forces and that neither pleasure nor meaning alone can give us a full description; rather, happiness is grounded in a myriad of values, virtues, goods, and ends. Finally, it is only with a liberal conception of happiness and morality that acknowledges the pluralism of humanity that we can create societies where all are capable of pursuing their own versions of the good life in the realm of freedom.