siteowner adds this link to the originating post
________________________________________
huichieh, to what extent do governments have a role in minimising our unhappiness, even if they aren't obligated to secure our happiness per se?
I would imagine that they have no such role at all. In fact, a government that manages to actually minimise the happiness of the citizens won't last very long as a government (assuming that the people do have some say over who gets to be the government).
Note also that my point is *not* that the government is not "obligated" to secure our happiness--but the stronger point that *we* can't afford to have them do it--they should not be *permitted* to try any such thing. It's too dangerous--to us. Rather, the obligation of the government is to secure the necessary conditions for *our* pursuit of happiness (whether individually or in association with others) while ensuring that when we do that, we don't trample on or oppress others.
huichieh, i'm confused, did you mean to say "minimise the UNhappiness of the citizens"? was there a typo?
Huichieh,
re: Ming the Merciless, I couldn't help but be reminded of the second joke on this Talkingcock page as well as William Gibson's "Disney Land with the Death Penalty".
On a less flippant note, perhaps another take on the whole issue would be tackling the definition of happiness. The term seems to have an implicit utilitarian calculus to it irrespective of how involved one thing governments should be.
Alternative schools could include Nietzsche's aphroism of "Man does not pursue happiness; only the Englishman does that" that criticizes Bentham's felicific calculus and arguing that the pursuit of meaning is the real basis of human existence.
The ancient Greeks also had a whole range of ideas about happiness as morality or even one that seems close to the Buddhist concept of happiness being the extinguishment of desire.
There is also the issue of our conception of happiness being a steady state or emotional constant but, looking up the OED, the Middle English origin of "happiness" originally meant "lucky" or "fortituous" - a random and limited conception that contrasts strongly with the modern, dominant understanding we have today.
Hey Huichieh,
Not to be a party-pooper, but there is a major interpretive mistake in your post. The list you quote is not a HAPPINESS index per se, but a HAPPY PLANET index (HPI). It consists of three measures: (1) life satisfaction (which is a raw measure of happiness based on a survey), (2) life expectancy (how long the average person lives to), and (3) ecological footprint (how much resources the society consume as a whole and other environmental factors such as cardon dioxide emissions etc.)
The measure of the HPI is 1x2/3, which means the number of 'happy years' an average person have in that society divided by the ecological footprint. It does not measure happiness but the amount of resources and pollution a society consumes and produces in order to create a particular level of happiness.
In fact if you look at just the (1x2) measure of happy years, Singapore is right among the top happiest nations in the world. For example, Singapore is 6.9 x 78.7 while Costa Rica (3rd in the HPI and probably the happiest of the whole lot - I have no time to input the data into a spreadsheat to calculate, so roughly speaking) is 7.5 x 78.2.
The difference is that while Singaporeans and Costa Ricans are pretty happy, Singaporeans seem to consume more resources and produce more pollution in order to achieve it. In other words, our ecological footprint is extremely high, that's why we are so low in the HPI. We are not unhappy but we are a 'high maintenance' nation of happy people.
This, of course, does not detract from your important discussion about the pursuit of happiness and government, but perhaps it adds new dimensions and qualifications to it.
anon: Hmm... that's my mistake. (I was in a hurry.) Now that I see your question: talking in terms of unhappiness--depending on how substantive one wants to get--is potentially just as controversial: one man's poison is another man's ice cream, which makes me want to say that, again, while it would be arguably the government's responsibility to minimise the conditions of unhappiness (for instance, poverty, depravation, oppression, etc.) I am very doubtful that they can tackle unhappiness per se.
ringisei: indeed, indeed (re: the controversy over the definition of happiness). And there are multiple dimensions to the controversy--it's not even a simple some say X is F but others say X is G disagreement. The "X" slot itself is subject to controversy. (I had a long post on the issue some time ago on the old blog).
Nonetheless, the HPI--as with most modern "happiness research"--went with the contemporary standard, i.e., something close to what some psychologists call "subjective well being", in this case, self-reported. But this is not to say that there is any real agreement among people as to what makes or contributes to subjective wellbeing.
dansong:
I did realise that. In fact, I was contemplating a second post that goes into more details about my reservations regarding the HPI but was out most of the afternoon. But thanks for the correction.
I guess I could be more careful about that point, just that the report (as I recall) was discussed in the papers as if it was a "happiness" index. And likewise in some of the international news agencies (see quotations in the Will W. link). Not to mention the forum page letter itself. So I guess I was playing along with that erroneous reading.
(Incidentally, I have put the data into a spreadsheet and am still playing with it. The whole Happy *Planet* thing opens up another can of (conceptual) worms: I think I know what a happy person might be, but what is a happy planet? But that might well be another post...)
Two points.
1) How do we operationalize happiness? Is the HPI index measuring our weak point as Singaporeans?
The HPI index seems to suggest that Singaporeans need a lot (materially) to be happy.
Perhaps is a reflection of a bigger phenomenon of kiasuism and the need to overachieve to achieve the seemingly unachievable.
Are we not conditioned (many times willingly and perhaps rightly) to consume more to enjoy more from young? From the ever bigger malls to the ever bigger religious buildings to the ever bigger schools to the ever bigger camps with the most modern facilities, are we not consuming more to try to re-achieving the same level of “happiness” as before?
To digress much and to rant a little, another example is that till today, I still cannot accept the unconvincing reason for making school exams way harder than PSLE, O and A levels from primary 1 to JC days. Really, has anyone stop to think what the point of doing that is? [Back to my quote of “the constant need to overachieve to achieve the seemingly unachievable”]
Certainly contentment on the beach with friend’s barbequing thinking of grand political strategies and social changes or simply sitting at the beach for hours are hardly the typical Singaporean’s Saturday afternoon, if you forgive my generalization.
2) Hui Chieh, whether one agrees with the issue whether the government should directly provide "happiness" and whether such a notion is counter intuitive, I must confess I can think of one example that the Singapore government does provide "happiness" directly, although for its own altruistic means.
For example, it is probably okay to argue that the initial stages of being in a relationship are happy and construe as “happiness”. My overseas friends have been very amused with the Social Development Unit (SDU) or more popularly known as Single, Desperate and Ugly. Does not the SDU personify such direct provision by the government?
Perhaps “direct provision of happiness” could include a somewhat unanimous happiness among the recipients.
Wayne:
Haha! But don't forget that even the SDU ads say "we provide the introduction, the rest is up to you". Once again: even the government recognises that they can at best provide the conditions that will, given suitable circumstances, lead to a happy outcome; rather than the outcome itself. Incidentally, I do believe that governments can do a lot to furnish these sorts of conditions, though there are two caveats. First is the one I've been hammering on: wew shouldn't confuse the necessary conditions for happiness, the normal conditions that usually lead to a happy outcome, and happiness itself. Second, and perhaps a more controversially, governments usually do this sort of thing in a redistributive manner. Insofar as SDU is funded by the taxpayers, there is a sense in which the extra bit that is being done for the happiness of a particular group is being paid for by the rest. This is not necessarily a bad or unjust thing, but it can become so... we have to be careful what we ask for.
On the HPI--it is a tad more complicated. As Dan points out, the three factors are "life satisfaction" (self reported), "life expectancy" and (inversely proportional) "environmental footprint"--the amount of resources needed to support our standard of living. Using the data provided by the NEF's website, it turns out that the following countries have a higher environmental footprint than us: the UAE, USA, Kuwait, Qatar, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Bahrain, Denmark, Canada, Ireland and Norway. (And France is just after us.) In other words, the listed countries use more resources than us to maintain their level of 'happiness'... To be honest, I am highly sceptical about how they measure such things. As far as I can tell, if a lot oil is involved in your economy, OR, if you are fairly developed, you are going to score high on the EF factor...
Hey Wayne and Huichieh, tongue-in-cheekily,
Going by what our prime minister told us, wage workers, on May Day this year, right smack in the elections hustling, perhaps the government is subtly trying to drop 'happiness' from its agenda:
“They make it sound like they want the government out of the unions. What it really means is that they want the union representatives out of the cabinet. And they call themselves the Workers’ Party.
So, you have a choice, choose to create more jobs tomorrow, even if you have to change today’s jobs. Choose to have a safe home, a clean government. Choose a strong partnership between the government, the unions and the employers, create jobs. Choose to ride the global tide, leave no one behind, stay together, move ahead.
And of course, choose the party that stands for happiness, prosperity and pro … happiness, prosperity and progress, or actually, we should just say … prosperity and progress, PAP.”
Mr. HL Lee, PAP candidate in Ang Mo Kio GRC and prime minister in the last government, 1 May 2006, as shown in CNA video clip.
See my backdated opinion on this portion of the speech.
huichieh, is there a need to define happiness in order to gain clarity on this issue? contrary to the point you raise in the closing paragraph of your post, doesn't there exist a more modest and more defensible position that one can take: that governments can allow for conditions that minimise unhappiness?
no need to "tackle unhappiness per se". no need to foster (much less "secure") such conditions. couldn't governments simply allow these conditions to develop in a passive or laissez-faire fashion?
and while we may disagree as to what makes us happy, isn't what makes us unhappy a lot less controversial? you raise three excellent examples yourself - poverty, deprivation and oppression. no need to be too substantive; don't many governments have trouble addressing those three issues alone?
HC, I agree with what you say about the SDU. However, I think SDU is more than facilitation, seems to be Very comprehensive for a government owned dating agency don't you think? Almost 1984ish in a positive way I guess?
HPI-True, you have rightly pointed out Singapore is not an idiosyncratic case. The very measurement of "happiness" index seems to be bias against developed countries.
DS-Last Time I check, our pledge which we heard loud and clear in a certain party's Serangoon rally, included "happiness, prosperity and progress". In the spirit of “constructive comments so as not to create despondency and cynicism”, I sincerely hope that at least the basic provision of economic and social conditions for growth that HC points out in his post will continue to be upheld. However, I sense that the PAP might be even moving away from this sort of function as you so subtly suggest?
My own childish takeaway on happiness? I remember one wise friend from school once said "I choose to be happy, Happiness is a choice". Quite Powerful words to me but trying telling that to an unemployed and down and out person from Costa Rica to Singapore to the US of A.
anon:
I don't think we are disagreeing (except perhaps terminologically). As a matter of fact, I do think that unhappiness is somewhat less controversial than happiness (sad, isn't it), though it is not completely uncontroversial. And I certainly agree that the usual conditions of unhappiness are--for the most part--well known: my examples of poverty, deprivation, oppression, etc. Though as you rightly suggests, governments have more than enough trouble addressing these issues alone.
Bringing up "laissez-faire" completes the picture for me. There is one important thing that I have not talked about so far, even though it has always been in the background. If, as per my suggestion, what we can reasonably expect and should in any case permit a government to do is to furnish the necessary conditions for our pursuit of happiness, then we cannot escape the issue of freedom. Though the government has an important role to play in preventing people in their pursuit of happiness from trampling on or oppressing each other: i.e., coordination and justice, the picture requires that, as far as possible, government leaves the people alone to pursue happiness as they see fit. In other words, as far as possible, people should be free to do as they see fit.
Is a government needed to furnish the conditions--either of the pursuit of happiness or the minimising of unhappiness? I think that it is need for at least some very important conditions. Think peace and security, enforcement of laws and regulations, provision of public goods, etc. Having these things do not happiness make. But not having them usually makes it much harder (if not impossible, given a modern setting) for people to pursue happiness.
well articulated. there is a tradeoff between governmental intervention and personal freedoms. will you write more about your libertarian views some day?
I am quite unhappy that the gravitar images have disappeared.
Huichieh and Wayne:
The HPI index is 'biased' against developed countries because the ecological footprint measure takes into account the amount of resources consumed and emissions/pollution produced. And developed countries tend to do those things more than less developed ones. But we may be too quick on judging the connection between development level and ecological footprint. There is an intervening factor that may reduce the ecological footprint of a country even if it is more developed: ecological management (emission reduction regime, resource conservation policies etc.).
So, the HPI index is not 'biased' against developed countries per se but against developed countries that are not doing enough ecological management (of course, how much is enough is a question that the international community must debate and answer, just as in the Kyoto Protocol, and the index should take this into account). But this 'bias' is precisely the point of the index - see my post on the HPI. The way to test this is to compare developed countries with better green regulations and practices and those with less - the former should have lower HPI given equal happiness.
On oil-refining countries, which includes Singapore, the resources the industry consumes and emissions released should not be externalized since the main beneficiary is the refining country (see my post on the HPI).
Wayne:
Hehehehe. Somehow, despite our penchant for creative acronyms, the pledged 'happiness' just couldn't quite fit into THAT acronym. On a more serious note, the contradiction is growing with globalization: to maintain growth to keep up with our happiness will mean a less equitable distribution of growth and thus happiness. Perhaps, our happiness is too tied to material growth, as you clearly suggest.
I am also unhappy--but it seems to be a problem with gravatar.com and there isn't much that we can do on our side. (The fact that the default image is still working suggests that the coding on the haloscan side is not the problem...)
If, on the other hand, you think that it really is the government's job to secure our happiness--and not just the necessary conditions for its pursuit given justice--then the question becomes this: Given that we don't all agree on what makes for a good life, one what counts as happiness (one's man's elixir is another man's poison), just what is it as far as tangible stuff goes is the government suppose to secure? But more importantly, how does this not lead to a form of tyranny?"
(1) I think the problem is that some citizens only wish to a good LIFE, while others wish to have a good SOCIETY. The happiness of the former group is more easily secured as long as (a) the economy is doing well, (b) infrastructures are good/surroundings are beautiful, (c) the place is safe. For this group, there are only 3 'necessary' conditions.
(2) For the latter group, there may be more, or different, 'necessary' conditions, which may or may not include (a)-(c) above. For them, perhaps the necessary condition for happiness is not a good INDIVIDUAL life, but a good SOCIETY.
(3) Now, the tricky part lies here: it is not that the former group discussed in (1) does not Want to have a good SOCIETY, it's just that for them to be happy, they just need to be in a place - any place in this world - that they can make big bucks and so on, and (2) they Want a good society but they do not 'will' it (re: philosopher Kant), they don't want it badly enough to express it, and instead just go about their daily lives in a rather apathetic manner. They may even be happier if they could see the Society progress in terms of 'opening up' and so on.
The latter group performs an important role in society precisely by urging people to shift their focus from the good Life to the good Society, to be less 'utilitarian' and more 'Kantian'. Dansong in the next post has gone even further, talking about the good World.
So yes, what is good? For the first group discussed in (1), the good life is secured by what you've described in your post. For the second group, the good life has 'the good Society' as a necessary condition. The fact that there is a coupling between Life-Society for the second group and an absence of coupling for the first group creates a fracturing in society. IF the first group still forms the majority, yes, one could say that the 'majority is happy', but this would then amount to a 'tyranny of the majority', for the intensity of the Unhappiness of the minority (perhaps not even a Small minority) could be v high indeed.
(Need to do a bit of rephrasing here) Re paragraph (2) above:...they Want a good society but they do not 'will' it (want it badly enough to do what's needed to achieve it)....It is possible that they might agree with the latter group regarding the elements of a 'good Society'.
HS: This is excellent. I'll respond to it shortly...
Thanks HuiChieh :] (rephrasing of the rephrasing: it's re Paragraph (3)'s point (2) above - suffering from Hangover today) :]
HS. Ok, I'm back.
I think that there is something to your distinction between those who want a good life and those who want a good society (with the former not assumed to not want the good society per se). Nonetheless, isn't there a more general issue of diversity than that posed by these two distinct groups? That is, just as we cannot assume from the onset that those who want a good life (but do not want a good society badly enough to do what is needed to achieve it) therefore actually agrees about just what constitutes a good life, so likewise, we also cannot assume from the onset that those who want a good society, by that fact alone, agree on what a good society would be like.
Isn't the more general way to characterise the diversity as follows: people (often) have different and potentially conflicting conceptions of the good life--some of which are individualistic, some communal (but not society wide), and some referencing society as a whole. Put this way, the somewhat more incidental contrast between the scope of people's concern for the good (individual life, family, local community, society, world, etc.) is really a subset of the more general contrast between the contents of people's concern for the good.
Once the issue is seen this way, the essential conflict is no longer between those who has a more restricted scope to their concern for the good and those who has a more expansive scope to their concern. People who share the same scope and also conflict: the Islamist's conception of the good society comes into deep conflict with the radical environmentalist' conception, with the animal rights activist's conception, with the 'right-wing-Christian's conception, with...
This is not to say that there are no conflicts at the lower level: it is even possible for two agents with formally the same conception of the good life to come into conflict, e.g., if both are egoists. But at least there is this consolation: people's whose concern for the good is more restricted tend not to place as great a moral demand upon other people to conform to their vision of the good.
People with a conception of the good society, on the other hand, by definition makes a demand upon large numbers of people. This in itself need not be a problem as long as the methods they use to seek the agreement of the others are peaceful. But when those methods essentially involve influencing or even constituting government, there will necessarily be the element of coercion--upon those who do not share their vision. I think that this poses a much greater threat of tyranny than the scenario you painted with a majority of people who cares mostly for their good life while only a minority cares for a good society. By definition the former are only refusing to go along with the lattter; they do not per se make a demand upon the latter to conform. The latter, however, by definition, needs the former to conform to their vision just in order to make actual their vision of the good society.
If--and that is a big "if", no doubt--the above is a convincing characterisation of the issue, then I think that my earlier suggestion that government should not be allowed, as far as possible, to do much more than secure the conditions for the (private) pursuit of happiness--or the good--given justice is again given support. The alternative invites the tyranny of a moral minority.
lol you know, Huichieh has actually put across the philoshophical foundations for libertarianism perfectly.
That's two in a row (see anon's last comment above, which also implies that I am libertarian). But actually, this is still squarely within a broadly liberal political theory. This is not to say that there isn't a specifically libertarian spin on what I've said so far.
HC: What you've written in your reply needs to be empirically studied in actual settings. In other words, I think that both my version and your version are only hypotheses that need to be tested against the real situation in a particular country (Actually, while writing my comment above, I thought that your original post was specifically about Singapore...)
Well, the post is about Singapore, but the considerations will apply wherever there exist a sufficient diversity of conceptions of the good life. And there is every reason to believe that Singapore--being the multicultural society that it already is--will exhibit a diversity of such conceptions and increasingly so. I agree that empirical study will be needed to find out just how much of a diversity there is and to what extent the different conceptions conflict. But anecdotally at least, such a diversity certainly exist. (Just consider the most outspoken voices on Singapore's corner of the blogosphere. How many conceptions of the good society are exemplified. We only need two conflicting ones for trouble to begin if both parties go about actualising their conceptions by means of government...) Note also that my own characterization of this diversity subsumes yours--it includes the sort of conflict that your talked about, and others.
HC:
unfortunately, due to how the Americans use the word "liberal", you might have to consider adding the word "classical" in front to distinguish your political ideology. Troublesome I know, but it does avoid conceptual confusion.
HS:
I actually think that when it comes to idea that "all individuals have different views regarding what is a good life", there hardly is any need for empirical evidence. To me it seems almost like a given. I don't know how would it be possible to argue against that premise.
Commenting by HaloScan
