The Complexity of Defining Money and Happiness - Essay Example

Sur Supervisor Money and Happiness Since ages, the term happiness has been described differently by different people in different eras. While as per Plato, the good and beautiful is a source of happiness, Aristotle defines happiness as “The most valued virtues” (Kesebir & Diene, 1). As societies evolve, the definition of happiness keeps on changing. According to Epicurus, pleasure is the highest good for mankind and he associates pleasure with living that is prudent and just. Christianity too, during the middle ages, considered virtue as the most crucial aspect for a pleasurable life. At the beginning of the 19th century, utilitarian philosophy came into existence that aimed at satisfying the highest number of wants of the people to derive happiness and pleasure. Yet one thing is certain that it is indeed difficult to define happiness in a universal sense. Modern psychology understands the complexity involved in defining the term happiness and that is why they prefer the term subjective well-being to define individual happiness in terms of moods, emotions and attitudes taking into account the cognitive judgment of satisfaction from ones life. The term implies that each individual makes their own judgment of happiness. Modern psychologists have made an attempt to define subjective well-being in terms of its several components such as marriage, health, satisfaction at work and so on; each major component may lead to either positive or negative ‘emotions or moods’. Thus, subjective well-being is pretty close to what is being explored about the term happiness in human life. The enquiry on happiness is centered around the actual happiness that is possible to achieve and not on the ideal happiness that is defined as perfect and perpetual – that is extremely high in standards and usually beyond the reach of most people. One thing can be said with certainty that happiness leads to "better health, better work performance, better social relationship" (Kesebir & Diene, 6) and in that sense, pursuit for happiness is a desirable thing in life. Happy individuals perform better in schools and colleges, at work places and move up in the ladder quickly and remain successful in the task they are engaged in. This certainly establishes that happiness is a crucial and necessary element in life but that leads us to two more fundamental question – how to achieve happiness in life? Is it that money as a utility can provide us all that is needed in terms of happiness? It is a general perception across most cultures and nations that money or wealth can give us all that is called happiness. It is interesting to notice that while Aristotle considers it a necessary ingredient for happiness, Stoic does not think so. Epicureans follow a middle path and consider money, albeit to a limited extent, an important element to achieving happiness. According to Epicurus, beyond certain critical level, the diminishing effect of income on happiness begins. Diener, Horowitz, and Emmons have proved that very wealthy people are "only modestly happier that a control group" (Kesebir & Diene, 8) from the same region. However, most researchers do suggest that some minimum "amount of money is a necessary condition of happiness" (Kesebir & Diene, 8). So money is an important and critical element that cannot be discarded in a quest to achieve happiness in life; however, the critical question that still needs to be answered is that up to what extent money can contribute to the happiness in life. It will be interesting to know how societies, in general, relate happiness with money. Richard Easterlin argues that in the US, "The pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of money come to much the same thing" (10). In pursuit of happiness and wealth, incomes of people have increased manifold in last several decades. This must ascertain that American society is one of the happiest societies due to their high income and wealth generation. Is it so? It is interesting to note that in one of the survey done in 1970, less than one-fourth of the lowest income group in American society reported that they were very happy. In the top income group, this proportion was almost double. The proportion of Very happy people kept on increasing as one approaches from low income group to high income group. Thus, empirically it can be said that more money brings more happiness. This positive correlation between money and happiness has been found to exist in all of the 30 national population surveys. Nineteen of these surveys were conducted outside the US that includes three communist countries. This does not ascertain that unhappy people does not exist among the rich. Hadley Cantril Study, done around 1960, does not suggest that richer countries are happier than poorer ones. Historically too, in the US itself, on average, the level of happiness across people in 1970 has not been found better to the happiness level that people derived during 1940s despite much higher incomes of people in 1970. Association of income and happiness thus, is not evident, then. These findings are paradoxical in themselves (Easterlin). The point is that happiness depends upon how individuals perceive their needs and to what extent they are fulfilled. With the economic progress, each generations needs keep on increasing and effect of positive income on happiness keep on diminishing or in other words, existing incomes are not considered adequate to fulfill the increased needs. Each individuals needs, in general, increase in line with not only the economic achievements of the society but also in relation to other members of the society. This also means that the people get trapped in material rat-race regardless of what their actual needs are! Brickman and Campbell have used the word hedonic treadmill to define this human psychology where people feel that higher wealth will give them higher happiness (Easterlin, 14). What Easterlin wants to convey is that people judge their own economic well-being by that of their contemporaries in the society. However, the society has evolved further since the time of Easterlin, in terms of economic well-being. Recent studies, as argued by Robert Lane, throw some new lights that counter the conclusions made by Easterlin. Jonathan Freedman says, "The rich are not more likely to be happy than those with moderate incomes; the middle class is not more likely to be ... happy than those with lower incomes.... For the majority of Americans, money, whatever else it does, does not bring happiness” (Lane, 15). Usually, external circumstances such as family activities are considered to be at top to derive happiness, other things that bring happiness such as friends, music, work, meals or sports do not require significant amount of money to procure. Also, it is a common perception that higher paid jobs provide pleasure; however, findings of Thomas Juster categorically suggest that job status not necessarily gives job enjoyment. Instead, family and social activities were way ahead in giving pleasure over many common activities such as movies, reading, shopping or television viewing (Lane, 18). The studies also establish that factors such as self-esteem, or sense of effectiveness – seen as the internal dispositions, rank high in terms of bringing happiness in life. The pertinent thing is that the factors of well-being that are not related to money cannot be bought by anyone and that is why money cannot bring happiness in life. The crux of the matter is that material possession, per se, does not grant happiness; it is the pleasurable activities that finally count. A new finding is astonishing in its view that each individual is born with happy or unhappy dispositions; psychologist Jan Fawcett describes it as a biological fixity as one of the restricting factor in humans. Even daily pleasures also have no relation to income levels (Lane, 18). The prudency lies in separating satiable pleasures from insatiable pleasure. Satisfaction derived from family and friends are not satiable pleasures because they do not diminish with time. In contrast, all materialistic possessions have diminishing values in terms of pleasure derived (Lane). People with high satiation characteristic may feel happy even if their income levels are relatively low. Thus, it can be concluded that Money brings happiness is a myth that most people keep on believing for a long time unless they start observing their own life closely. Perhaps, it is due to the notion that money can purchase most things in life and thereby, is a strong source to derive happiness; however, the fact remains that happiness derived through money does not last long. Worldwide different studies suggest that a sense of achievement provides more satisfaction than what one derives from the income earned at workplace. Works-Cited Esterlin, Richard A. “Does Money Buy Happiness?” Public Interest (1973) 3-10. Print. Kesebir, Pelin and Ed Diener. “In Pursuit of Happiness: Empirical Answers to Philosophical Questions.” Perspectives on Psychol ogical Science. 3 (2008). 117 - 123. Print Lane, Robert E. “Does Money Buy Happiness?” Public Interest (1993). 56-65. Print. Works-Cited Read More