Does Money Buy Happiness - Research Paper Example

s It is often argued that an increase in wealth or money significantly increases the happiness indicators. However, philosophers in the field also tend to argue that while on the other hand, it can also be argued evidently that happiness doesn’t necessarily increase at the rate the wealth increases. In other words, there is a presumption in the research studies indicating the pattern that money is a significant indicator which tends to enhance happiness as well, yet other factors can`t be ignored. In this context, social norms as well as other biological and psychological factors may contribute towards determining the happiness level of an individual. Also, it has been observed that with an increase in the wealth of a state, the individual happiness hasn’t increased to the same extent. Thus, it may be concluded that happiness increases with the increase in wealth but not at the same rate. To further analyze the argument, the works of Kesebir, Easterlin and Lane will be studied so that logical conclusion can be deduced. Kesebir (6) explores the rationale and logic behind happiness; that is how to find true happiness and what truly comprises of the notion of happiness. He is of the view that the idea of happiness has evolved over the years where it was equated with luck during the Homeric era, transformed to pleasure during the enlightenment era and can be equated with an act as little as owning a warm puppy in the contemporary era. However, the idea of happiness in its essence may not be as simple as that. In this context, over time contrasting views have been presented to explain what may constitute a happy life. Democritus argued that happiness is more of one`s state of mind, while Socrates and Plato disagree with this presumption and rather ought to give an objective meanings to happiness, i.e. virtue and goodness of life. On the other hand, the hellinistic view disregards virtue as a yardstick of happiness. In the enlightenment era, when a more secular shape was regarded to the concept of happiness, ideas like maximum utility and pleasure principal began over-shadowing the explanation to what may be called a happy life. Though the philosophers in the field agree on the difficulty associated with the idea of understanding the true definition of happiness, they have come up with a few parameters which may help in explaining the concept. Kesebir (8) regards that these parameters include life satisfaction, satisfaction with significant domains of life, positive effect and lower levels of negative effect. However, in an effort to further quantify the idea, certain theories have been put forth with Ryff and Singer`s theory of psychological well being, and Ryan and Deci`s self determination theories being significant. These theories tend to signify them if a certain physiological as well as psychological needs of a human are met, they can lead a happier life. Furthermore, for a better understanding the philosophers have distinguished between the ideal and the actual kind of happiness, with the former being the perfect and unattainable form, and the latter being the form which can be attained by humans. In this context, a further debate is generated with context to pessimism and optimism, where philosophers have opposing views on whether or not the majority of people are happy. However, there is a consensus amongst philosophers that the people generally aim to achieve higher levels of happiness. The entire debate reflected above boils down to the argument that it is not money or attainment of higher levels of wealth which makes a person any happier, rather it is only in synthesis with other similar yet differing factors which lead towards a happier and a fuller life. In this view, Epicureans has rightly put forth the argument that on one hand where wealth is necessary for the humans to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, yet beyond a certain threshold it ceases to offer that level of happiness. Even the most conservative philosophers like Aristotle, who aim on focusing on an objective side of the concept of happiness are of the view that factors like loneliness and other social indicators are essential ingredients of adding flavors of happiness in people`s life. Similarly, religious values and the personality of an individual also determine the factors which may contribute in carving a happy life for an individual, which may differ from one individual to another (Kesebir 9). Thus, money is associated with most of the factor essential in defining happiness in one`s life, yet money alone doesn`t have the capability to replace other factors as well. Therefore, the essence to happiness lies in cultural values, one`s personal disposition of pleasure and obviously to some extent, the wealth consummated by that individual. Easterlin (15) builds his case on the capitalistic mindset owned by the majority in America. In such a society, the idea of happiness is embedded in the capacity to avail maximum utility out of maximum number of good, the parameter for which is essential wealth. Thus, it can be presumed that in such a society, happiness if directly proportional to wealth. However, the data doesn’t in all cases signify the argument posed in this context. The data does confirm the presumption that on increasing the average income of a state, there may be a positive effect on the individual happiness of the individual. However, it doesn’t apparently affect the average happiness of the state. This implies directly that not all individuals rely on wealth and monetary indicators for acquiring higher levels of happiness, though some of them or even the majority of them may do. At the same time, the study conducted by Inkeles concludes that monetary factors like financial status and the job or education of an individual may or may not directly affect the happiness of an individual, however, a reversal pattern is absolutely unattainable in his model (Easterlin 13). In other words, in no way can it be implies that there isn`t any plausibility in the assumption that wealth related factors are inversely related to happiness. Thus, it is apparent that wealth has a positive effect on happiness of an individual but that is not always the case. Data clearly suggests that other factors also very effectively contribute in happiness. These factors are in essence directly related with social norms, as the social norms are deeply embedded in the psyche of an individual and thus, directly dictate the parameters of happiness. In other words, one`s personal experiences with the human condition truly tend to determine the state of happiness. In such a case, wealth may not be the most important indicator, and other social factors like religion and culture may also be at play. However, the trend of positive relationship between wealth and happiness is more apparent in the developed states as compared to the non-developed states, since the experiences of human condition in wealthier societies are also more exposed to money related factors (Easterlin 13). This can be explained with the principal of ‘hedemonic treadmill’, where more wealth brings more happiness, while when more money is acquired by the society in general, the feeling of happiness begins to decay. Lane (19) has built his argument to support the concept of ‘hedonic treadmill’, which signifies that if the expectation and desires of the society in general are in sync and they are being enhanced, irrespective of the increase in income or wealth, clearly the happiness indicators would also be enhanced. In this context, he argues that it is the family, leisure and friendships which are the true indicators of happiness, and not the income status. Furthermore, the happiness of a society in general increases with the increase in income as the state starts performing better fiscally, however, there is no evidence that the individual happiness is increased. Moreover, an increase in income of an individual level may tend to increase the happiness of the person in the short run, while in the long run, the new income level would act as the yardstick against which further achievements would be measured and thus, even the new income level wouldn’t increase the happiness level any further. Similarly, biological and other psychological factors also come into play while assessing happiness (Lane 17). This implies that, for instance, if someone is born with blue eyes that would lead towards increasing happiness throughout the life. Other psychological factors may also be considered. Thus, increase in income doesn’t always ensure increase in happiness, where other factors are also accounted. Thus, conclusively, on one hand where the increase in wealth or money significantly increases the happiness indicators, on the other hand, it can also be argued evidently that the happiness doesn’t necessarily increase at the rate the wealth increases. In other words, money is a significant indicator which tends to enhance happiness as well, yet other factors can`t be ignored. In this context, social norms as well as other biological and psychological factors come into play to determine the happiness level if an individual. Also, it has been observed that with an increase in the wealth of a state, the individual happiness hasn’t increased to the same extent. Thus, it may be concluded that happiness increases with the increase in wealth but not at the same rate. Works Cited: Kesebir, Pelin and Ed Diener. ‘In pursuit of Happiness: Empirical Answers to Philosophical Questions.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (2008) 117-123. Print. Esterlin, Richard A. ‘Des Money Buy Happiness?’ Public Interest (1973) 3-10. Print. Lane, Robert E. ‘Does Money Buy Happiness?’ Public Interest (1993) 56-65. Print Read More