Many philosophies and religions concern themselves with how to live a happy life, albeit approaching the question in different ways. Philosophy typically comes up with applied theories and then tries to reconcile those theories with how the world (and the people in it) is. Religions are more fundamental, claiming universal truths and offering an infinite reward if the person simply follows the creeds and accepts the values of that religion. It is no secret that philosophers on average are not typically the happiest of folks generally speaking. I myself am prone to state that “happiness is over-rated”. Philosophy offers no guarantees but simply the questions that can broaden perspectives and give individuals and even sometimes societies a fighting chance at understanding the world and our place in it. Religious people seem happier than philosophers, but I believe that this façade is a simple and thin one. Religious people seem happy only given that they believe their infinite reward to be guaranteed through God. That is to say, that religious folks define happiness by looking forward to what they consider inevitable future events and having faith that those events will actually come to fruition. I myself find that philosophy offers me the freedom and hence the happiness to think honestly and thoroughly and keeps me from relying on creeds and dogma. Some people claim that without their religious faith, they could not be happy at all, but I would argue that such a statement shows the true nature of what those people consider happiness is, and it does not seem to be happiness at all.
According to The World Values Surveys, “The results clearly show that the happiest societies are those that allow people the freedom to choose how to live their lives,”[i] I happen to agree given some stipulations. First, people must be free to choose how to live their lives, and secondly actually and consciously choose how to live their lives. Let’s face it, most of us believe that we are free to choose how to live our lives but do not really know what it is to choose. In other words, we do not act on intentional choice. Most of the “choices” that we make are not choices at all but reactions to situations that we find ourselves in either by chance or by reactions to other events. In short, we are led downstream by the proverbial currents of life. To be free is to both be capable of acting and understand the motivation behind that act. People often believe that they make a choice to have children, but procreation is not a rationally motivated act: it is biological. The more free choice would be to act intentionally against the biological motivation to have children. Such an act takes willpower and intentional choice, and thus frees us from the evolutionary drive that is within all of us. The act of procreation does not make people (or parents) happy; neither does the belief that having children is the natural order of life. Happiness, as a virtue, is the product of nothing less than the conscious understanding of any action taken.
In the same way religious belief, the belief in an infinite reward after death or the belief in an all-powerful deity who looks after us, does not make us happy. Religious beliefs are not based on rational choices but on faith. To have a religious belief one must have faith in something that refuses (rather than defies) to follow the edict of conscious understanding and as such religious people are not free to actually and consciously choose how to live their lives. Biological evolution drives most people to procreate, not free choice. In the same way, fear (a bi-product of biological evolution) drives people to accept religious creeds and dogmas. In fact, it is not uncommon for people to simply accept what they were told as children. This phenomenon is ubiquitous as any philosophy class will show. Blind acceptance, another word for faith, is simply an easy way to answer a complex and seemingly unanswerable question. The edict seems to be: believe and get on with life. This is not happiness but simply ignorant bliss.
Recently a poll found that Denmark was the happiest nation on earth. The definition of happiness was based on health levels, prosperity and education. While this may seem to be worthwhile basis’, they are not necessarily based on free choice. My point is that when we speak of happiness it is important to differentiate it from chance, happenstance, genes, evolutionary drive, and ignorant bliss. When we speak of true happiness, it must be understood that we speak of a conscious choice to act based on rational thought rather than unrecognized sources, evolution or faith. To be happy, we must understand that our happiness is warranted, that we chose the path that led us to be happy, and that sometimes happiness entails hardship, is unnatural and will inevitably be difficult to achieve. While chance often defines individuals, it is the rational and active individual who defines the situation that chance gives them. While easy answers and a credit card seem to lead us to happiness, we must understand that such feelings are short-cuts unworthy to be considered as true happiness. While biological evolution allows us to be rational, we must realize to be happy we must fight for control over our biological drive in order to attain the freedom that our intellect will allow us. To be happy is to truly choose how to live our lives. That choice, however comes at a cost: the acceptance that happiness may not be what we believed it to be.
[i] The world Values Survey was funded by the national science foundation, the Swedish and Netherlands foreign ministries, and other institutions.
