Theories of Happiness

Happiness is a concept frequently used with confidence, yet rarely examined in depth. Many people assume they understand what happiness is, but struggle to define it precisely.
Upon closer inspection, there's surprising disagreement about what constitutes happiness. Philosophers and psychologists have debated various aspects of happiness for centuries, leading to diverse perspectives.
The combination of confusion and importance makes happiness a prime subject for philosophical analysis. Understanding different theories of happiness can provide valuable insights into personal values and societal well-being.

Theories of happiness can be broadly categorized into internalist and externalist theories. These categories reflect differing views on whether happiness depends primarily on our mental states or external factors.

Internalist theories posit that happiness is solely a matter of our mental states. According to this view, happiness is determined by what we think and feel.
Happiness, according to internalists, involves possessing specific states of mind. These states of mind can range from pleasure and contentment to satisfaction with one's life.
Hedonism and life satisfaction theory are examples of internalist theories. Both focus on subjective experiences as the primary components of happiness.

Hedonists claim that happiness consists of specific qualia, particularly pleasurable sensations. The more pleasure one experiences, the happier one is said to be.
To be happy, according to hedonism, is to experience or tend to experience pleasure. This implies a life filled with enjoyable experiences and minimal pain.

Nuances within Hedonism

Sensory hedonists equate happiness with raw pleasurable sensations. This view prioritizes physical pleasures and immediate gratification.
Preference hedonists equate happiness with having experiences or sensations that we enjoy or prefer. This allows for a broader range of experiences, as preferences can vary widely.
These theories diverge in cases where a person enjoys painful sensations. Preference hedonism can account for this by arguing that the person prefers the overall experience, including the pain.

Objections to Hedonism

Pleasure may be too shallow to be equated with happiness. Critics argue that a life focused solely on pleasure lacks depth and meaning.
It's possible to experience pleasure when sad and pain when happy. This suggests that pleasure and pain are not always reliable indicators of overall happiness.

Life satisfaction theory defines happiness as holding the belief that one's life, taken as a whole, is going well. This is a more cognitive approach to happiness, focusing on evaluation rather than pure emotion.
This theory is a leading measure of happiness in many studies. Researchers often use surveys to gauge how satisfied people are with their lives.
Claims like "Denmark is the happiest country in the world" often stem from studies assessing life satisfaction. These studies typically involve asking people to rate their overall life satisfaction on a numerical scale.

Attractive Features

Life satisfaction theory seems more stable and wider than hedonism. It is less susceptible to momentary fluctuations in mood.
It considers happiness as an overall perception of one's life. This takes into account various aspects of life, such as relationships, career, and personal growth.

Objections to Life Satisfaction Theory

Perceptions about our lives may not be well-grounded. People may be mistaken about how well their lives are actually going.
Perceptions can be malleable and transitory (e.g., influenced by weather). External factors can influence our perception of life satisfaction.
Perceptions may be founded upon misconceptions. False beliefs or inaccurate information can distort our evaluation of our lives.
Robert Nozick argues that happiness based on false evaluations is inauthentic. He introduces the idea that true happiness should be based on reality.
Nozick's point challenges internalism and sets the stage for externalist theories. He suggests that something beyond our internal states is necessary for genuine happiness.

Externalist theories claim that true happiness requires something more than mere states of mind. It emphasizes the importance of external factors in achieving happiness.
For the externalist, something beyond ourselves is required for happiness. This can include living a virtuous life, fulfilling one's potential, or contributing to society.

Eudaimonia is a term associated with Aristotle. It is often translated as "flourishing" or "living well."
Aristotle believed that the good of a thing can be determined by focusing on its function. Understanding the purpose of something helps determine its value.
According to eudaimonism, happiness is objective and experienced when we fulfill our natural function. Happiness is not just a feeling, but a state of being that arises from living in accordance with our nature.
Happiness is more than a mental state; it should be identified in an activity. It is something we do, rather than something we passively experience.
Aristotle believed our distinctive nature lies in our capacities as rational thinking individuals. Our ability to reason and think critically sets us apart.
The happy human is one who fulfills her potential through a life of excellent rational activity. This involves developing our intellectual and moral virtues.

Objections to Eudaimonism

Do humans really have only one distinctive function? Critics argue that humans have many different capabilities and purposes.
Identifying happiness exclusively in the pursuit of rational activity seems implausible. It neglects other important aspects of human life, such as emotions, relationships, and creativity.

PHIL338 explores related questions in the context of analysing ideals of the human good. This course delves deeper into philosophical concepts related to happiness and well-being.
Reading: Haybron, “Happiness and Pleasure”, on eReserve. This article provides further insights into the relationship between happiness and pleasure.

Do you think it’s possible that you could be mistaken about how happy you are right now? If so, does that tell us anything about internalist theories of happiness? This question encourages reflection on the subjective nature of happiness.
Can you think of any times you’ve experienced pain but felt happy nonetheless? This question