Is it possible to measure happiness ? (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's winter so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Is it possible to measure happiness ?

This week’s topic and introduction have been written by Duncan.

Any ethical theory based on utilitarianism encourages us to take actions that maximise pleasure and minimise pain, either for those who are directly affected by the action or for everyone.

We have discussed previously some of the objections to this moral framework, notably its demandingness: it just requires too much of us, and seems to conflict with our deeply-held beliefs and common-sense morality.

There are also problems in determining what actions or things will make people happy. We could just ask them but they may not know or they may make poor choices, possibly preferring instant gratification over better, long term outcomes. If we believe they will make poor choices, we may take a paternalistic approach and give them what we think is best for them. Governments tend to take a blended approach, with a mix of advice, nudges and laws, whilst allowing for a reasonable degree of personal choice. You may question whether they get this balance right.

One particular challenge to utilitarianism is how to measure happiness. How can we compare two possible courses of action ? Which of them will produce the greater happiness ? This seems to apply both where we have multiple possible actions under consideration, as well as to the choice to do something rather than nothing.

The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by the English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to induce. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could in principle, at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

To be included in this calculation are several variables, which Bentham called "circumstances". These are:

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

Hedons and dolors are the hypothetical units of measurement used to quantify pleasure and pain, respectively. Hedons represent positive utility (pleasure), while dolors represent negative utility (pain/suffering). These units are subjective and used for calculation, not precise, standardised measurement. The goal is to calculate the net happiness - total hedons minus total dolors - to determine the best moral action.

Is this a useful way of approaching the problem ? And don't we do this anyway, if only subconsciously ? Even if we reject the possibility of assigning accurate values, might it nonetheless encourage us to think more carefully ?

Is it possible to compare different sorts of pleasure ? e.g. given the choice, would you rather be rich or healthy ?

Much research has been done over the last century in the fields of economics and decision theory to understand and predict what choices people will make, under conditions of uncertainty, and how they evaluate risk. e.g. the von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem.

Cardinal utility is an economic concept that assumes the satisfaction from consuming goods or services can be measured numerically, using hypothetical units called "utils," allowing for quantifiable comparisons of preference intensity(e.g., pizza gives 30 utils, chocolate cake gives 20 utils).

There are other approaches to this problem that take a retrospective view. For example, The World Happiness Report is an annual publication that contains articles and rankings of national happiness, based on respondent ratings of their own lives, which the report also correlates with various quality of life factors. Nationally representative samples of respondents are asked to think of a ladder, with the best possible life for them being a 10, and the worst possible life being a 0. They are then asked to rate their own current lives on that 0 to 10 scale.

Being retrospective though, it can only answer questions like: 'what things made people happy ?' rather than: 'what things will make them happy'. Nonetheless, we may be able to learn from past successes and mistakes, and recalibrate our future actions, both individually and at national and global levels.

Gross National Happiness is a philosophy that guides the government of Bhutan. It includes an index used to measure a population's collective happiness and well-being. The Gross National Happiness Index was instituted as the goal of the government in the Constitution of Bhutan. The four pillars are:

1. sustainable and equitable socio-economic development;
2. environmental conservation;
3. preservation and promotion of culture; and
4. good governance.

Minister of State for Happiness and Wellbeing is a position in the United Arab Emirates Cabinet, which oversees the UAE's plans, programs and policies to achieve a happier society. The responsibility of this office is to "align and drive government policy to create social good and satisfaction."

The Program consists of five pillars: the science of happiness and positivity, mindfulness, leading a happy team, happiness and policies in government work, and measuring happiness.

We look forward to seeing you on Sunday. You will be awarded 100 hedons for your attendance. Spend them wisely.