I agree fully with the notion of reasonableness being able to contribute to communal happiness. But I also think that if everyone was truely rationale, we would be able to realise that when collective happiness increases (that when my neighbour's happiness would to increase), it will also likely benefit me. Almost akin to game theory. In this way I would argue that rationality wouldn't be directly akin to material self interest.

Dear Mohamed,

I think that there is no society that is driven purely by rational choice. Not even the United States although it is true that the more developed is a society, the more we see about rational choice. I think that neither there is a such thing as "truly happy" society. Some people are happier than others in every society. Then, again, it seems that "truly happy" people are more frequent to be found in less developed societies than in more developed ones. To me, this is the effect of choice or lack of choice. The more choices you can make, then the more opportunities for you to be both HAPPY and SAD. Where you do not have the opportunity of choice, you will be either HAPPY or SAD most of the time, but it will be not a rational choice.

I hope this opinion of mine answers your question.

Dear Luis, I must agree that I should have written "happy" rather than "truely happy", as truely happy is quite utopian!

However, you seem to hint to "happiness" as being context dependent by drawing a distinction between developed and developing countries. Are you implicitly suggesting the influence of materiality on happiness? or individualism on happiness?

Obviously, in every society there is a broad scope of feelings at any given time between people, and you make very obvious statements that circumvent the question.

Let us imagine someone who has always lived in the jungle and someone who has always lived in the city. How easy / difficult is it for anyone of them to be happy? and why is that so?

Hello Mohamed,

In my opinion and based on my work on the issues of subjective and objective wellbeing, happiness and life satisfaction are not as rational as people think. Access to capital and livelihood resources make people happy to the extent that it meets the basic need for living such as food, cloth and shelter, but if your position is even slightly higher than basic living, you start thinking about social status and relate your life with others in the community. People's expectation from their life and the society is a great matter for their wellbeing and happiness. For example, somebody can be happier with lesser things, whiles others can be unhappy even if they have a good life. In other words, happiness and richness are not the same thing and they are not absolute, but are relative things. Hom

Well, thanks for the question and the discussion so far...

I believe we have forgotten REASONABLESS in this discussion - as rationality in itself is insufficient to force morality!

John Rawls draws an important distinction between Rational and Reasonable... a combination of both might be what is needed... however, the more reasonable people we have the better.

Regards

Theodora Issa

Indeed, what is the definition of true happiness - is it peace within the spirit and the soul, or is it the accumulation of more materialistic issues...

Regards

Theodora Issa

Hi Mohamed,

“So who’s the happiest? As has been the case the past five years, that distinction goes to countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity: Norway, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand” (Christopher Hellman, “The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013,” from FORBES on line: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/.

Perhaps, it is more than coincidental that this “prosperity-linked” report comes from FORBES Magazine, “The Capitalist Tool”; nevertheless, the happiness study has been replicated with very similar results for several years by less biased sources. And, I think Amartya Sen’s HDI Index (as an alternative to GNP) indicates that the variables/indices being considered by Hellman in his article are legitimate. Incidentally, the saddest people in the world appear to be those who lack the personal security implied by these variables: “The saddest, least prosperous? War-ravaged countries under the thumb of greedy despots and theocrats, where freedom of expression is limited, education nonexistent, violence the norm: Chad, Congo, Central African Republic, Afghanistan and Yemen” (Hellman, supra).

It seems to me that the ability to make rational choices would decrease in countries that are war-ravaged and/or led by despots (unless, of course, one still has freedom of movement and can make the rational choice to pick up one’s family and move elsewhere). In short, I view the ability to make rational (rather than desperate) choices as a freedom in itself – a freedom that is denied to many in today’s world.

However, I think your question goes to a much deeper issue, which is the invasion of the logic of the marketplace (i.e., “rational choice”) into all spheres of human activity in some affluent societies. I noticed this as an Estate Planning attorney in the affluent community in which I live. When I first started preparing Wills and Trusts and advising on the probate of estates back in the early 1980s, clients who had lost loved ones waited a month or so before coming into my office to start the procedure of probating the Will and administering the Decedent’s estate. However, toward the end of the 20th Century, I noted a change in the way clients viewed the loss of a loved one; it had become “an economic event” – one requiring careful financial planning related to the wealth enhancing opportunities, rather than an occasion for grief and perhaps concern over the emotional and financial wellbeing of dependent survivors (e.g., widow, widower, or minor children).

Instead of waiting for a decent period after mom or dad died to come into my office for guidance in administering the Decedent’s estate, children would telephone me while mom or dad was still in the hospital with a final illness with questions such as, “Gwen, Mom is really not doing well at all so may not make it this time, is her estate in order?” Although I dreaded such calls and the struggle not to insult the prospective heir; I think I found even more distasteful, the children who were flying into town for a funeral and called me from out-of-state to make an office appointment for some time in between the Viewing at the funeral parlor and the actual funeral in the church so that they could get the probate of the Will started right away. Fortunately, I had a good excuse for not agreeing to such meetings because in New Jersey one is not allowed to probate a Will until 10 days after the Decedent’s death. (Hence, I could say to these anxious “bereaved” children to just concentrate on the burying of their loved one during their brief visit for the funeral and plan to come back at a later date for the reading of the Will and to start the estate administration.)

It could be that I am just a romantic, but I view prenuptial and antenuptial agreements in the same light -- as further evidence of the invasion of all aspects of life with market-based logic.

Gwen

Hi Gwen,

Thank you so much for this long and lovely elaboration on the question. I very much agree with a lot of what you said. Perhaps at this stage I may also furnish a detailed analysis based on the inputs of others. Very shortly!

Thank you, Mohamed, I am very interested In reading a composite analysis of the responses to this important question.

Gwen

Hi Mohammed,

After having had some time to read the other responses, I wonder if we are not overlooking the cultural variability in what we term 'logic'. Many people appear to conflate Western materialist ideals with logic when in fact what we define as 'reasonable' or 'rationale' is in fact not only a culturally contingent co-construction but also one which is inflected with the idiosyncrasies of the individual.

In Western culture, preceding the current individualist-materialist philosophy to which we all appear to subscribe, happiness was defined very differently. Aristotle, in his Nichomachean Ethics, termed happiness ''eudaimonia" which he defines as a way of being which is both pleasurable and aids the fulfilment of one's unique human potential. Our current version of happiness seems to measure pleasure and achievement in terms of material possession but while they are linked, they are not the same. We might have different currencies of happiness from society to society but what appears to be consistent in most research is a sense of inner fulfilment (pleasure) and self-esteem (fulfilment of potential) based on one's way of life meeting cultural (or rational) ideals.

This makes happiness a zero sum outcome in Western culture because its individualist nature and material basis means that one's happiness comes at the expense of another due to competition over limited resources. Therefore, in a rational system which uses a different currency for happiness, one available to all, we are likely to see a rational and happy people.

Mohammed Salam!

It is known that rationality of choice has external and internal consistency. Procreation or fertility in modern time a matter of rational choice. It seems quite rational and prudent in the framework of demographic logic logic that individuals of a human group (society/nation) exercise their choice for a small family size procreating less. It will result in less consumption, per capita income will increase and natural capital will lost longer as well as burden on them will eased out. Abundance a good lifestyle may be anticipated out of this rational choice.. The rich generally reproduce less to maintain and increase their socioeconomic status. But, the poor around the world from this perspective seem imprudent or irrational from this logical point of view.. But, given their infant and child mortality experience and their dependence on their children in old age (sons) in the absence of any social security, their exercise of choice for high reproduction rates takes into account the replacement effect for infant and child mortality and the insurance effect for dependence on children in old age. This is internal consistency of their rational choice of the poor. Can this internal consistency of their rational choice be challenged on any sound logical basis? Meanings of rational choice are determined by conditions and situations in which individuals live, Some choices may be rational to you but not to me in my circumstances. There is no apparent relationship between happiness and rational choice of people. Happiness is state of mind, a large proportion of human population living in wants and needs content with little which they have are happier than those who have all facilities, luxuries and wealth because they find one or other thing lacking in life.

Hi Anthony,

I must confess that I think you "hit the nail on the head." I concur with your analysis. You hint to an important issue, that of perception and undrstanding of individuals actions from their own frame of reference. I think the variability of our currencies for happiness stems from that. However, I wanted to capture some diverse thoughts on various perceptions of happiness in relation to rationality.

In addition to the current interventions from other participants, I believe that regardless of culture, the perception of happiness seems to stem from human nature (difficult to define), the mechanisms of which create a balance between mind and body, the spiritual and the material. If this balance is achieved under a set of conditions which vary from one context to another, perhaps one can then assert that happiness can be reached. This relativist view would mean that rationality may be one of the main conditions that transcend context variability,as it would enable individuals to take decisions and act according to particular expected outcomes.....

If such outcomes are achieved consistently over time, then people might be happier. Therefore, it seems to me that happiness is the aggregate outcome of individual actions over time.

I agree fully with the notion of reasonableness being able to contribute to communal happiness. But I also think that if everyone was truely rationale, we would be able to realise that when collective happiness increases (that when my neighbour's happiness would to increase), it will also likely benefit me. Almost akin to game theory. In this way I would argue that rationality wouldn't be directly akin to material self interest.

Thank you Hilda, I think you held the bull by the horns!. I like the connection with the social environement and I think it is a sine qua non condition for ones happiness regardless of material status.i.e., the ability to act rationally while also taking into account the well being and happiness of others around us who may be impacted by our actions, is of paramount importance.

Mohamed,

I have come to the conclusion that the more one holds a gestalt view of something, the better one is able to understand it and is potentially able to come up with better solutions for a specific problem. Be the field psychology, philosophy, medicine, economics etc. etc.

I agree with Hilda and the notion of collective happiness but one can never keep everyone happy. I think its important to be a man of conscience, then everything falls in normality.

Hi Henna,

On a superficial level it will be very hard to keep evryone happy all the time. I think that's where the principle of reasonableness comes in. I think that your nation of conscience is also rather important because that brings in the the very important moral and ethical aspects that a healthy society can't d without. I know this leads to the other debate of objective morality, but I think a good starting point for this is a modified version of medicine's principle, which I reword as "to whom does it do harm?"

agree with henna and hilda. i think the concept of keeping everyone happy is itself not rational. Truly happy is a very overrated concept. But if a society develop itself on the concept of collectievness and in this conscience is very key component , then to some extent we can expect a morally and ethically healthy society.

Humans are born irrational, and that has made us better decision-makers. You can say the same about emotions that occur at the moment of decision and are directly related – we call these integral emotions. Suppose you sign up to retrain as a driving instructor. Because of the risk in changing careers, the act of signing up can evoke feelings of fear and even pleasure that help explain the choice. Where the previous example was about choosing in anticipation of excitement to come, here you experience it immediately. Again, however, it is a rational choice to experience the feeling as part of the decision.

Rational decision-making is steeped in conservatism, and errs on the side of caution. As we have learned, our emotions serve a wide variety of purposes. Emotions can be fleeting, persistent, powerful, complex, and even life-changing. They can motivate us to act in particular ways and give us the tools and resources we need to interact meaningfully in our social worlds.