Happiness, traditionally considered to be a positive emotion or experience, has now evolved into a scientific term capable of being quantified and measured according to set parameters. This evolution of happiness has been propelled by extensive research in various fields, regarding the importance of happiness as an objective of legislation and policy. This unusual correlation between happiness, law and policy stems from the realisation that economic prosperity doesn’t necessarily translate into increased individual happiness and consequently, national happiness. Contrarily, reliable data shows that in many wealthy nations an increase in per capita income has not led to a concomitant increase in happiness levels; thereby leading to a skewed model of national development. In an attempt to rectify this and to advocate for a more inclusive growth, researchers have been promoting a transition to the happiness approach. This happiness approach primarily puts forth a model wherein happiness parameters are a part of policy-making, and since any change in policy has to be driven by a corresponding change in law; it becomes pertinent to review the relationship between happiness and law.
MEANINGS OF HAPPINESS
It is important to delve into the different meanings of happiness to gauge the inherent attributes of the concept and how different disciplines view it. “In her 2007 book The How of Happiness, positive psychology researcher Sonja Lyubomirsky elaborates, describing happiness as “the experience of joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile”.”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines happiness from two perspectives:
Philosophers who write about “happiness” typically take their subject matter to be either of two things, each corresponding to a different sense of the term:
- A state of mind
- A life that goes well for the person leading it
In the first case our concern is simply a psychological matter…What is this state of mind we call happiness? Typical answers to this question include life satisfaction, pleasure, or a positive emotional condition … In the second case, our subject matter is a kind of value, namely what philosophers nowadays tend to call prudential value—or, more commonly, well-being, welfare, utility or flourishing.
Ruut Veenhoven states, “When used in a broad sense, the word happiness is synonymous with ‘quality of life’ or ‘well-being’. In this meaning it denotes that life is good, but does not specify what is good about life.”
Edward Diener goes a step further and introduces the concept of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) within the happiness paradigm. He asserts:
Philosophers debated the nature of happiness for thousands of years, but scientists have recently discovered that happiness means different things. Three major types of happiness are high life satisfaction, frequent positive feelings, and infrequent negative feelings (Diener, 1984). “Subjective well-being” is the label given by scientists to the various forms of happiness taken together.
Thus, happiness for the purpose of quantification is subdivided into three types: Evaluative (life satisfaction), Affective (positive or negative feelings) and Eudaimonic (sense of purpose). It is the sum of all the above which is taken together to measure a nation’s happiness levels.
HAPPINESS AND LAW
Happiness as a goal of the Government is not a new theory. From ancient times the legitimate objective of monarchy has been to enhance the happiness of its citizens. Kautilya wrote in Arthashastra that a King is as happy as his people and so the King’s foremost duty (Dharma) is to his people. Bentham stated , “ the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation”, more popularly known as the theory of Utilitarianism. Kautilya and Bentham are a few of the many philosophers who have time and again stressed upon the principle of happiness as the guiding force of any Government, rather than economic objectives. However, this emphasis also led to the fear of interventionist policies by the authorities under the garb of promoting happiness; and this very fear became the bedrock for modern nations to adopt economic parameters such as the Gross Domestic Product for measuring their progress.
The dependence on GDP as the sole and true marker of a country’s progress, led to a lopsided view of development. Despite pre-existing constitutional guarantees regarding happiness and its pursuit thereof, in written constitutions around the world, the concept of happiness took a backseat in legal and policy debates globally. It was in 1972 that Bhutan became the first country to introduce Gross National Happiness as its primary indicator of the country’s progress. “The phrase ‘gross national happiness’ was first coined by the 4th King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, in the late 1970s when He stated, “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product.” The concept implies that sustainable development should take a holistic approach towards notions of progress and give equal importance to non-economic aspects of wellbeing and happiness.” In this way, Bhutan became the first country showcasing administered happiness.
Bhutan’s departure from the norm propelled an era of happiness and well-being research, which led to two major findings: a) Increased economic wealth did not necessarily translate into increased happiness, also known as the Easterlin paradox and b) A happiness based approach towards law and policy had the potential to provide more comprehensive outcomes. Based on these findings, nations across the world are slowly incorporating legislative and policy measures to enhance the happiness levels of the citizens alongside the already established economic objectives.
Law has long been considered as a tool of social change and engineering. In addition to its coercive role, law has also been attributed with the ability to uplift the quality of life of citizens; and orient the nation towards a safer, happier and more prosperous existence. Researchers argue that happiness studies have the potential of positively affecting all areas of legislation. “Gruber & Mullainathan (2005) analyze U.S. and Canadian General Social Survey happiness data to find that increased cigarette sales taxes are associated with higher self-reported well-being levels of those having a propensity to smoke.” From proportionality of punishment to levying of taxes, happiness studies have the potential to provide a deeper insight into the human perspective; thereby leading to a more informed law-making process.
Happiness studies have garnered a lot of attention in recent years, to the extent that critics fear they can lead to a complete upheaval of the traditional model of development. However, neither is that feasible nor advisable. The more realistic and pragmatic approach is to introduce happiness as a complementary parameter in the growth paradigm. There is no doubt that economic success has to be coupled with collective happiness, for a more inclusive and equitable society.