March 20th of each year is recognized as International Day of Happiness or, as some would call it, World Happiness Day.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne in Montreal
Happiness is the meaning and purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence. ~ Aristotle
March 20th of each year is recognized as International Day of Happiness or, as some would call it, World Happiness Day. What this actually means is anyone’s guess. Are the 193 States members of the United Nations expected to ensure that their people are happy on that day? Or are we, the people of the world expected, come what may on that day, to convince ourselves that we are happy? To feel happy. As in everything else with a global flavour, this curious phenomenon has its genesis in a Resolution of the United Nations. The General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution 66/281 of 12 July 2012 proclaimed 20 March the International Day of Happiness, in the words of the UN “to recognize the relevance of happiness and well-being as universal goals and aspirations in the lives of human beings around the world and the importance of their recognition in public policy objectives”. It gets curiouser and curiouser, to quote Alice in Lewis Carol’s famous work, when the words “happiness” and “wellbeing” are used together. Why didn’t the General Assembly call this day the “International Day of Happiness and Well-Being”?
In an effort to clarify the meaning and purpose of the World Happiness Day, the Resolution invites all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, as well as civil society, including non-governmental organizations and individuals, to observe the International Day of Happiness in an appropriate manner, including through education and public awareness-raising activities. It boggles the mind what the populists, demagogues and the illiberal ideologues round the world would do in their countries.
Arguably (and it may be difficult to disagree) happiness is a state of mind while wellbeing is “life satisfaction, pleasure, or a positive emotional condition” as rather well put by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The United Nations seemingly has a different perspective. This becomes evident from a “World Happiness Report” released annually by the United Nations. The latest version that is available (April 2020) ranks the top ten States (from the happiest people at 1 on a scale of 1-10) as Finland. For the third year in a row, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, and Luxemburg. Every year, the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network publishes its World Happiness Report—a study that examines the connections between happiness and development - all the while encouraging policymakers to place more of an emphasis on the former: “around 1,000 people in each U.N. member state rate their quality of life on a scale from 0 to 10, while researchers cull data from six areas: GDP per capita, life expectancy, social support, trust and corruption, perceived freedom to make life decisions, and generosity”.
Another curious factor seems to be that it was Bhutan that proposed the idea for Resolution 66/281, and needless to say, the proposal was based on the term “Gross National Happiness” first introduced in 1972 by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck – 4th King of Bhutan - who famously said that “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product” suggesting clearly that human progress should be inextricably linked to non-economic aspects of wellbeing. Accordingly, Bhutan’s version of happiness of a nation is measured in the Gross National Happiness Index under four pillars : good governance, sustainable socio-economic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation, which are in turn expanded into the following criteria: psychological wellbeing; health; education; time use; cultural diversity and resilience; good governance; community vitality; ecological diversity and resilience; and living standards. When these criteria are compared with the factors used for the compilation of the UN’s World Happiness Report, one notices the disparity between the two in both general and specific terms. As happiness is a state of mind, one of the key drivers of happiness would be health which, as perceptively defined by the World Health Organization is not just the absence of disease or infirmity but complete physical, mental, and social well-being.
Both epistemically and philosophically, the problem seems to be semantic, shrouded by the word “happiness” and its link to GDP and the like. In this context it makes more sense to agree with Aristotle - that one’s happiness lies entirely within oneself and within one’s control through what he called “the mean” to connote a balance or, as the Buddha called it “the middle path”. Happiness is intrinsically linked to how one lives one’s life rather than how external factors such as GDP and the corruption or absence thereof in a system of governance would affect a nation. In other words, happiness is the cultivation of virtue, pursued by a sense of duty rather than inclination; autonomy rather than heteronomy; and categorical, rather than hypothetical imperative – qualities expounded by the 18th Century German philosopher Emanuel Kant. Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, thought along similar lines where he professed that a happy person is one who has principles and sticks to them, and the pursuit of happiness lay in the rigorous embracing of these principles.
There is a common thread woven into the fabric of the ancient philosophy of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates (who thought that rational control over one’s desires, or inclinations as Kant put it, and its harmonization with the soul would produce a “divine-like state of inner tranquility that the external world could not effect”) and the relatively recent philosophy of the categorical imperative of Kant. Many have posited that it was this divine state of inner tranquility of Socrates that made him drink Hemlock cheerfully, with no hint of complaint or grief. To Socrates, happiness was not the seeking of more but developing the capacity to enjoy less.
As a state of mind, which happiness incontrovertibly is, the World Happiness Index or Report criteria used by the United Nations should be considered the exact opposite of what Plato said – that one “who makes everything that leads to happiness depends upon himself, and not upon other men, has adopted the very best plan for living happily".
The problem does not seem to lie with the intent or purpose of the United Nations, nor with the ten exemplary nations on the UN list but in trying to decipher what “happiness” really is. One could not be blamed for thinking that what the United Nations intended with Resolution 66/281 was to promote a good life for the people of the world. Perhaps “World Happiness Day” should have been called “International Day of Good Living”. The various aspects of state of mind and body could come under this broad title. This would solve the problem for an impoverished farmer who barely ekes out a living but spends all he got on educating a son or daughter who later turns out to be an ingrate. When the offspring attains a high position and does well while neglecting the father, the latter could still be happy that his child is doing well materially. Regretfully, this would do nothing for the physical wellbeing of the old man. As Meriam Webster puts it, a good life is a happy and enjoyable life. This definition covers both the physical and mental aspects of living. In this sense it is difficult to envision how World Happiness Day would contribute to the attainment of a good life if the criteria remain what they are.
Post a Comment