Happiness vs. Utility, A Question
I came across an intriguing website that briefly discusses the difference between happiness and utility. I believe that there is a critical distinction here in these comments, and I am trying to isolate that distinction.
Even if people would ultimately be equally happy with or without pollution, that does not mean that they would not choose to be pollution-free, given the choice. If there is indeed no choice to be made, then it makes sense to adjust one’s own happiness to a neutral level; there is no point in feeling agitated, unsatisfied, unhappy, if there is no choice. This does not mean that, were a choice to become available, they would not jump at it with great enthusiasm. Preference is a counterfactual concerning what people would choose if they were given a choice. Thus it may be that people strongly prefer clean air to dirty air (meaning, if they had the choice, they would choose the clean air), and yet at the same time are equally happy in dirty air as they would be in clean air, given (hypothetically) that they have no actual choice, since it is useless, does not serve any purpose, to be unhappy.
I propose that happiness is not the end, it is the means. We get unhappy in order to be motivated to improve our circumstances. When there are no options open to us, it is pointless for us to be unhappy. Unhappiness exists in order to push us to take advantage of opportunities. Therefore one might even expect unhappiness to increase as the number of opportunities increase. Thus, the better things get, in the sense of the better the opportunities we have, the unhappier we might get. And this increase in unhappiness would be a symptom of something very, very good. In contrast, placid happiness may be a symptom of options firmly closed off, and therefore a symptom of something very, very bad. It may be a symptom of a kind of morbid state of society.
Clearly, there is a distinction between happiness and utility. Utility could be described as “maximizing ones choices”, though this explanation seems unsatisfactory. Perhaps utility is related to the evolutionary concept of fitness. I am still working my ideas out on this subject. If anyone who reads this has any additional comments, I would like to hear them. I would appreciate any help, a book or website reference would be perfect.
In the meantime, I will perform some research of my own.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:15 am
That is a great comment on happiness Miguel. I spend a lot of time thinking on this topic too, and here’s my take:
Happiness is the goal AND the means. We all strive for happiness (or should) and the best way to get happiness is by being happy. Some ways of getting happy can be temporarily unpleasant, but few people get happy mostly by being unhappy.
Secondly, I DO believe happiness is a good measure of utility. Pollution is a bad example, because pollution will make us unhappy. Losing a leg is a great example, because it shows that many of the things we worry about truly don’t affect our happiness.
We will be a lot happier, when we learn to make choices (individually and collectively) that further our long-term happiness.
That being said, even if I know that I could be just as happy with one less leg (or two), I still take care to keep the legs that I have
)
January 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Yes, happiness is the goal and the means, this is very insightful. I have been thinking about this for the last three days. It is a compelling statement. Thank you for this bit of wisdom.
You said, “Pollution…, because pollution will make us unhappy”. Is this true? Does pollution have the power to make us unhappy? I am not so sure. Yes, pollution will make us sick, but the choice to be happy lies with us.
Yes, making choices that further our long-term happiness is critical.
Great comments! Thanks Alexander, I really appreciate your insight. Thanks for reading the blog.