essay about the meaning of happiness

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Does Happiness Really Mean?

It's not the same for everyone

Verywell/ Jiaqi Zhou

How to Cultivate Happiness

How to be a happier person.

Happiness is something that people seek to find, yet what defines happiness can vary from one person to the next. Typically, happiness is an emotional state characterized by feelings of joy, satisfaction, contentment, and fulfillment. While happiness has many different definitions, it is often described as involving positive emotions and life satisfaction. 

When most people talk about the true meaning of happiness, they might be talking about how they feel in the present moment or referring to a more general sense of how they feel about life overall.

Because happiness tends to be such a broadly defined term, psychologists and other social scientists typically use the term ' subjective well-being ' when they talk about this emotional state. Just as it sounds, subjective well-being tends to focus on an individual's overall personal feelings about their life in the present.  

Two key components of happiness (or subjective well-being) are:

• The balance of emotions: Everyone experiences both positive and negative emotions, feelings, and moods. Happiness is generally linked to experiencing more positive feelings than negative ones.
• Life satisfaction: This relates to how satisfied you feel with different areas of your life including your relationships, work, achievements, and other things that you consider important.

Another definition of happiness comes from the ancient philosopher Aristotle, who suggested that happiness is the one human desire, and all other human desires exist as a way to obtain happiness. He believed that there were four levels of happiness: happiness from immediate gratification, from comparison and achievement, from making positive contributions, and from achieving fulfillment. 

Happiness, Aristotle suggested, could be achieved through the golden mean, which involves finding a balance between deficiency and excess.

Signs of Happiness

While perceptions of happiness may be different from one person to the next, there are some key signs that psychologists look for when measuring and assessing happiness.

Some key signs of happiness include:

• Feeling like you are living the life you wanted
• Going with the flow and a willingness to take life as it comes
• Feeling that the conditions of your life are good
• Enjoying positive, healthy relationships with other people
• Feeling that you have accomplished (or will accomplish) what you want in life
• Feeling satisfied with your life
• Feeling positive more than negative
• Being open to new ideas and experiences
• Practicing self-care and treating yourself with kindness and compassion
• Experiencing gratitude
• Feeling that you are living life with a sense of meaning and purpose
• Wanting to share your happiness and joy with others

One important thing to remember is that happiness isn't a state of constant euphoria . Instead, happiness is an overall sense of experiencing more positive emotions than negative ones.

Happy people still feel the whole range of human emotions—anger, frustrastion, boredom, loneliness, and even sadness—from time to time. But even when faced with discomfort, they have an underlying sense of optimism that things will get better, that they can deal with what is happening, and that they will be able to feel happy again.

"Even people who have experienced terrible trauma can still also experience happiness," says Hannah Owens, LMSW , "though it is important to recognize that it might be more difficult for them to obtain the balance generally associated with overall happiness, and that their happiness might look very different from others' who have not had to deal with such challenges."

Types of Happiness

There are many different ways of thinking about happiness. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle made a distinction between two different kinds of happiness: hedonia and eudaimonia.

• Hedonia: Hedonic happiness is derived from pleasure. It is most often associated with doing what feels good, self-care, fulfilling desires, experiencing enjoyment, and feeling a sense of satisfaction.
• Eudaimonia: This type of happiness is derived from seeking virtue and meaning. Important components of eudaimonic well-being including feeling that your life has meaning, value, and purpose. It is associated more with fulfilling responsibilities, investing in long-term goals, concern for the welfare of other people, and living up to personal ideals.

Hedonia and eudemonia are more commonly known today in psychology as pleasure and meaning, respectively. More recently, psychologists have suggested the addition of the third component that relates to engagement . These are feelings of commitment and participation in different areas of life.

Research suggests that happy people tend to rank pretty high on eudaimonic life satisfaction and better than average on their hedonic life satisfaction.  

All of these can play an important role in the overall experience of happiness, although the relative value of each can be highly subjective. Some activities may be both pleasurable and meaningful, while others might skew more one way or the other.

For example, volunteering for a cause you believe in might be more meaningful than pleasurable. Watching your favorite tv show, on the other hand, might rank lower in meaning and higher on pleasure.

Some types of happiness that may fall under these three main categories include:

• Joy: A often relatively brief feeling that is felt in the present moment
• Excitement: A happy feeling that involves looking forward to something with positive anticipation
• Gratitude: A positive emotion that involves being thankful and appreciative
• Pride: A feeling of satisfaction in something that you have accomplished
• Optimism: This is a way of looking at life with a positive, upbeat outlook
• Contentment: This type of happiness involves a sense of satisfaction

While some people just tend to be naturally happier, there are things that you can do to cultivate your sense of happiness. 

Pursue Intrinsic Goals 

Achieving goals that you are intrinsically motivated to pursue, particularly ones that are focused on personal growth and community, can help boost happiness. Research suggests that pursuing these types of intrinsically-motivated goals can increase happiness more than pursuing extrinsic goals like gaining money or status.  

Enjoy the Moment

Studies have found that people tend to over earn—they become so focused on accumulating things that they lose track of actually enjoying what they are doing.  

So, rather than falling into the trap of mindlessly accumulating to the detriment of your own happiness, focus on practicing gratitude for the things you have and enjoying the process as you go. 

Reframe Negative Thoughts

When you find yourself stuck in a pessimistic outlook or experiencing negativity, look for ways that you can reframe your thoughts in a more positive way. 

People have a natural negativity bias , or a tendency to pay more attention to bad things than to good things. This can have an impact on everything from how you make decisions to how you form impressions of other people. Discounting the positive—a cognitive distortion where people focus on the negative and ignore the positive—can also contribute to negative thoughts.

Reframing these negative perceptions isn't about ignoring the bad. Instead, it means trying to take a more balanced, realistic look at events. It allows you to notice patterns in your thinking and then challenge negative thoughts.

Avoid Social Comparison

Another way to cultivate happiness and to make sure that you are able to maintain your happiness, Owens says, is to stop comparing yourself to others.

"No two lives are alike, and focusing on what others have is a sure-fire way to feel envy and regret. Focus on the good things in your own life, and you'll be more likely to find contentment in them," she says.

Impact of Happiness

Why is happiness so important? Happiness has been shown to predict positive outcomes in many different areas of life including mental well-being, physical health, and overall longevity.

• Positive emotions increase satisfaction with life.
• Happiness helps people build stronger coping skills and emotional resources.
• Positive emotions are linked to better health and longevity. One study found that people who experienced more positive emotions than negative ones were more likely to have survived over a 13 year period.
• Positive feelings increase resilience. Resilience helps people better manage stress and bounce back better when faced with setbacks. For example, one study found that happier people tend to have lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol and that these benefits tend to persist over time.
• People who report having a positive state of well-being are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors such as eating fruits and vegetables and engaging in regular physical exercise.
• Being happy may make help you get sick less often. Happier mental states are linked to increased immunity.

Some people seem to have a naturally higher baseline for happiness—one large-scale study of more than 2,000 twins suggested that around 50% of overall life satisfaction was due to genetics, 10% to external events, and 40% to individual activities.

So while you might not be able to control what your “base level” of happiness is, there are things that you can do to make your life happier and more fulfilling. Even the happiest of individuals can feel down from time to time and happiness is something that all people need to consciously pursue.

Cultivate Strong Relationships

Social support is an essential part of well-being. Research has found that good social relationships are the strongest predictor of happiness. Having positive and supportive connections with people you care about can provide a buffer against stress, improve your health, and help you become a happier person.

In the Harvard Study of Adult Development, a longitudinal study that looked at participants over 80 years, researchers found that relationships and how happy people are in those relationships strongly impacted overall health.

So if you are trying to improve your happiness, cultivating solid social connections is a great place to start. Consider deepening your existing relationships and explore ways to make new friends. 

Get Regular Exercise

Exercise is good for both your body and mind. Physical activity is linked to a range of physical and psychological benefits including improved mood. Numerous studies have shown that regular exercise may play a role in warding off symptoms of depression, but evidence also suggests that it may also help make people happier, too.

In one analysis of past research on the connection between physical activity and happiness, researchers found a consistent positive link.  

Even a little bit of exercise produces a happiness boost—people who were physically active for as little as 10 minutes a day or who worked out only once a week had higher levels of happiness than people who never exercised.

Show Gratitude

In one study, participants were asked to engage in a writing exercise for 10 to 20 minutes each night before bed.   Some were instructed to write about daily hassles, some about neutral events, and some about things they were grateful for. The results found that people who had written about gratitude had increase positive emotions, increased subjective happiness, and improve life satisfaction.

As the authors of the study suggest, keeping a gratitude list is a relatively easy, affordable, simple, and pleasant way to boost your mood. Try setting aside a few minutes each night to write down or think about things in your life that you are grateful for.

Find a Sense of Purpose

Research has found that people who feel like they have a purpose have better well-being and feel more fulfilled.   A sense of purpose involves seeing your life as having goals, direction, and meaning. It may help improve happiness by promoting healthier behaviors. 

Some things you can do to help find a sense of purpose include:

• Explore your interests and passions
• Engage in prosocial and altruistic causes
• Work to address injustices
• Look for new things you might want to learn more about

This sense of purpose is influenced by a variety of factors, but it is also something that you can cultivate. It involves finding a goal that you care deeply about that will lead you to engage in productive, positive actions in order to work toward that goal.

Challenges of Finding Happiness

While seeking happiness is important, there are times when the pursuit of life satisfaction falls short. Some challenges to watch for include:

Valuing the Wrong Things

Money may not be able to buy happiness, but there is research that spending money on things like experiences can make you happier than spending it on material possessions. 

One study, for example, found that spending money on things that buy time—such as spending money on time-saving services—can increase happiness and life satisfaction.  

Rather than overvaluing things such as money, status, or material possessions, pursuing goals that result in more free time or enjoyable experiences may have a higher happiness reward.

Not Seeking Social Support

Social support means having friends and loved ones that you can turn to for support. Research has found that perceived social support plays an important role in subjective well-being. For example, one study found that perceptions of social support were responsible for 43% of a person's level of happiness.  

It is important to remember that when it comes to social support, quality is more important than quantity. Having just a few very close and trusted friends will have a greater impact on your overall happiness than having many casual acquaintances.

Thinking of Happiness as an Endpoint

Happiness isn’t a goal that you can simply reach and be done with. It is a constant pursuit that requires continual nurturing and sustenance.

One study found that people who tend to value happiness most also tended to feel the least satisfied with their lives.   Essentially, happiness becomes such a lofty goal that it becomes virtually unattainable. 

“Valuing happiness could be self-defeating because the more people value happiness, the more likely they will feel disappointed,” suggest the authors of the study.

Perhaps the lesson is to not make something as broadly defined as “happiness” your goal. Instead, focus on building and cultivating the sort of life and relationships that bring fulfillment and satisfaction to your life. 

It is also important to consider how you personally define happiness. Happiness is a broad term that means different things to different people. Rather than looking at happiness as an endpoint, it can be more helpful to think about what happiness really means to you and then work on small things that will help you become happier. This can make achieving these goals more manageable and less overwhelming.

History of Happiness

Happiness has long been recognized as a critical part of health and well-being. The "pursuit of happiness" is even given as an inalienable right in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Our understanding of what will bring happiness, however, has shifted over time.

Psychologists have also proposed a number of different theories to explain how people experience and pursue happiness. These theories include:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The hierarchy of needs suggests that people are motivated to pursue increasingly complex needs. Once more basic needs are fulfilled, people are then motivated by more psychological and emotional needs.

At the peak of the hierarchy is the need for self-actualization, or the need to achieve one's full potential. The theory also stresses the importance of peak experiences or transcendent moments in which a person feels deep understanding, happiness, and joy. 

Positive Psychology

The pursuit of happiness is central to the field of positive psychology . Psychologists who study positive psychology are interested in learning ways to increase positivity and helping people live happier, more satisfying lives. 

Rather than focusing on mental pathologies, the field instead strives to find ways to help people, communities, and societies improve positive emotions and achieve greater happiness.

Finley K, Axner M, Vrooman K, Tse D. Ideal levels of prosocial involvement in relation to momentary affect and eudaimonia: Exploring the golden mean . Innov Aging . 2020;4(Suppl 1):614. doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.2083

Kringelbach ML, Berridge KC. The neuroscience of happiness and pleasure .  Soc Res (New York) . 2010;77(2):659-678.

Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework; Committee on National Statistics; Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council; Stone AA, Mackie C, editors. Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).

Lee MA, Kawachi I. The keys to happiness: Associations between personal values regarding core life domains and happiness in South Korea . PLoS One . 2019;14(1):e0209821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209821

Hsee CK, Zhang J, Cai CF, Zhang S. Overearning . Psychol Sci . 2013;24(6):852-9

Carstensen LL, Turan B, Scheibe S, et al. Emotional experience improves with age: evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling . Psychol Aging . 2011;26(1):21‐33. doi:10.1037/a0021285

Steptoe A, Wardle J. Positive affect and biological function in everyday life . Neurobiol Aging . 2005;26 Suppl 1:108‐112. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.08.016

Sapranaviciute-Zabazlajeva L, Luksiene D, Virviciute D, Bobak M, Tamosiunas A. L ink between healthy lifestyle and psychological well-being in Lithuanian adults aged 45-72: a cross-sectional study . BMJ Open . 2017;7(4):e014240. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014240

Costanzo ES, Lutgendorf SK, Kohut ML, et al. Mood and cytokine response to influenza virus in older adults . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2004;59(12):1328‐1333. doi:10.1093/gerona/59.12.1328

Lyubomirsky S, Sheldon KM, Schkade D. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change . Review of General Psychology. 2005;9 (2):111–131. doi:0.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

The Harvard Gazette. Good genes are nice, but joy is better .

Zhang Z, Chen W. A systematic review of the relationship between physical activity and happiness . J Happiness Stud 20, 1305–1322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9976-0

Cunha LF, Pellanda LC, Reppold CT. Positive psychology and gratitude interventions: a randomized clinical trial . Front Psychol . 2019;10:584. Published 2019 Mar 21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00584

Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia . Psychother Psychosom . 2014;83(1):10‐28. doi:10.1159/000353263

Whillans AV, Dunn EW, Smeets P, Bekkers R, Norton MI. Buying time promotes happiness .  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2017;114(32):8523‐8527. doi:10.1073/pnas.1706541114

Gulacti F. The effect of perceived social support on subjective well-being . Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences . 2010;2(2):3844-3849. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.602

Mauss IB, Tamir M, Anderson CL, Savino NS. Can seeking happiness make people unhappy? [corrected] Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness [published correction appears in Emotion. 2011 Aug;11(4):767]. Emotion . 2011;11(4):807‐815. doi:10.1037/a0022010

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Happiness: What is it to be Happy?

Author: Kiki Berk Category: Ethics , Phenomenology and Existentialism Words: 992

Listen here

Do you want to be happy? If you’re like most people, then yes, you do.

But what is happiness? What does it mean to be “happy”? [1]

This essay discusses four major philosophical theories of happiness. [2]

1. Hedonism

According to hedonism, happiness is simply the experience of pleasure. [3] A happy person has a lot more pleasure than displeasure (pain) in her life. To be happy, then, is just to feel good. In other words, there’s no difference between being happy and feeling happy.

Famous hedonists include the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and the modern English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. [4] These philosophers all took happiness to include intellectual pleasures (such as reading a book) in addition to physical pleasures (such as having sex).

Although we associate being happy with feeling good, many philosophers think that hedonism is mistaken.

First, it’s possible to be happy without feeling good (such as when a happy person has a toothache), and it’s also possible to feel good without being happy (such as when an unhappy person gets a massage). Since happiness and pleasure can come apart, they can’t be the same thing.

Second, happiness and pleasure seem to have different properties. Pleasures are often fleeting, simple, and superficial (think of the pleasure involved in eating ice cream), whereas happiness is supposed to be lasting, complex, and profound. Things with different properties can’t be identical, so happiness can’t be the same thing as pleasure.

These arguments suggest that happiness and pleasure aren’t identical. That being said, it’s hard to imagine a happy person who never feels good. So, perhaps happiness involves pleasure without being identical to it.

2. Virtue Theory

According to virtue theory, happiness is the result of cultivating the virtues—both moral and intellectual—such as wisdom, courage, temperance, and patience. A happy person must be sufficiently virtuous. To be happy, then, is to cultivate excellence and to flourish as a result. This view is famously held by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. [5]

Linking happiness to virtue has the advantage of treating happiness as a lasting, complex, and profound phenomenon. It also explains how happiness and pleasure can come apart, since a person can be virtuous without feeling good, and a person can feel good without being virtuous.

In spite of these advantages, however, virtue theory is questionable. An important part of being virtuous is being morally good. But are immoral people always unhappy? Arguably not. Many bad people seem happy in spite of—or even because of—their unsavory actions. And a similar point can be made about intellectual virtue: unwise or irrational people aren’t always unhappy, either. In fact, some of these people seem happy as a direct result of their intellectual deficiencies. “Ignorance is bliss,” the saying goes!

But virtue theorists have a response here. Maybe some immoral people seem happy, on the surface; but that doesn’t mean that they are truly happy, at some deeper level. And the same thing can be said about people who lack the intellectual virtues: ignorance may lead to bliss, but that bliss isn’t true happiness. So, there seems to be some room for debate on these issues.

3. Desire Satisfaction Theory

According to the desire satisfaction theory, happiness consists in getting what you want—whatever that happens to be. A happy person has many of her desires satisfied; and the more her desires are satisfied, the happier she is.

Even though getting what you want can be a source of happiness, identifying happiness with desire satisfaction is problematic.

To start, this implies that the only way to become happier is by satisfying a desire. This seems wrong. Sometimes our happiness is increased by getting something we didn’t previously want—such as a surprise birthday party or getting stuck taking care of a neighbor’s cat. This implies that desire satisfaction is not necessary for happiness.

Desire satisfaction is not always sufficient for happiness, either. Unfortunately, it is common for people to feel disappointed when they get what they want. Many accomplishments, such as earning a degree or winning a tournament, simply don’t bring the long-lasting happiness that we expect. [6]

So, even if getting what we want sometimes makes us happy, these counterexamples suggest that happiness does not consist in desire satisfaction. [7]

4. Life Satisfaction Theory

According to the life satisfaction theory, happiness consists in being satisfied with your life. A happy person has a positive impression of her life in general, even though she might not be happy about every single aspect of it. To be happy, then, means to be content with your life as a whole.

It’s controversial whether life satisfaction is affective (a feeling) or cognitive (a belief). On the one hand, life satisfaction certainly comes with positive feelings. On the other hand, it’s possible to step back, reflect on your life, and realize that it’s good, even when you’re feeling down. [8]  

One problem for this theory is that it’s difficult for people to distinguish how they feel in the moment from how they feel about their lives overall. Studies have shown that people report feeling more satisfied with their lives when the weather is good, even though this shouldn’t make that much of a difference. But measuring life satisfaction is complicated, so perhaps such studies should be taken with a grain of salt. [9]

5. Conclusion

Understanding what happiness is should enable you to become happier.

First, decide which theory of happiness you think is true, based on the arguments.

Second, pursue whatever happiness is according to that theory: seek pleasure and try to avoid pain (hedonism), cultivate moral and intellectual virtue (virtue theory), decide what you really want and do your best to get it (desire satisfaction theory), or change your life (or your attitude about it) so you feel (or believe) that it’s going well (life satisfaction theory).

And if you’re not sure which theory of happiness is true, then you could always try pursuing all of these things. 😊

[1] This might seem like an empirical (scientific) question rather than a philosophical one. However, this essay asks the conceptual question of what happiness is, and conceptual questions belong to philosophy, not to science.

[2] Happiness is commonly distinguished from “well-being,” i.e., the state of a life that is worth living. Whether or not happiness is the same thing as well-being is an open question, but most philosophers think it isn’t. See, for example, Haybron (2020).

[3] The word “hedonism” has different uses in philosophy. In this paper, it means that happiness is the same thing as pleasure (hedonism about happiness). But sometimes it is used to mean that happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value (hedonism about value) or that humans are always and only motivated by pleasure (psychological hedonism). It’s important not to confuse these different uses of the word.

[4] For more on Epicurus and happiness, see Konstan (2018). For more on Bentham and Mill on happiness, see Driver (2014), as well as John Stuart Mill on The Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures by Dale E. Miller and Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

[5] For more on Plato and happiness, see Frede (2017); for more on Aristotle and happiness, see Kraut (2018), and on the Stoics and happiness, see Baltzly (2019).

[6] For a discussion of the phenomenon of disappointment in this context see, for example, Ben Shahar (2007).

[7] For more objections to the desire satisfaction theory, see Shafer-Landau (2018) and Vitrano (2013).

[8] If happiness is life satisfaction, then happiness seems to be “subjective” in the sense that a person cannot be mistaken about whether or not she is happy. Whether happiness is subjective in this sense is controversial, and a person who thinks that a person can be mistaken about whether or not she is happy will probably favor a different theory of happiness.

[9] See Weimann, Knabe and Schob (2015) and Berk (2018).

Baltzly, Dirk, “Stoicism”,  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Berk, Kiki (2018). “Does Money Make Us Happy? The Prospects and Problems of Happiness Research in Economics,” in Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 1241-1245.

Ben-Shahar, Tal (2007). Happier . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Driver, Julia, “The History of Utilitarianism”,  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Frede, Dorothea, “Plato’s Ethics: An Overview”,  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Haybron, Dan, “Happiness”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Konstan, David, “Epicurus”,  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle’s Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Shafer-Landau, Russ (2018). The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vitrano, Christine (2013). The Nature and Value of Happiness. Boulder: Westview Press.

Weimann, Joachim, Andreas Knabe, and Ronnie Schob (2015). Measuring Happiness . Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Related Essays

Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? by Matthew Pianalto

The Philosophy of Humor: What Makes Something Funny?  by Chris A. Kramer

Virtue Ethics  by David Merry

John Stuart Mill on The Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures by Dale E. Miller

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

Ethical Egoism by Nathan Nobis

Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

What Is It To Love Someone? by Felipe Pereira

Camus on the Absurd: The Myth of Sisyphus by Erik Van Aken

Ethics and Absolute Poverty: Peter Singer and Effective Altruism  by Brandon Boesch

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death  by Frederik Kaufman

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

About the Author

Dr. Kiki Berk is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southern New Hampshire University. She received her Ph.D. in Philosophy from the VU University Amsterdam in 2010. Her research focuses on Beauvoir’s and Sartre’s philosophies of death and meaning in life.

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on  Facebook ,  Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at the bottom of  1000WordPhilosophy.com

Share this:, 20 thoughts on “ happiness: what is it to be happy ”.

• Pingback: Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: W.D. Ross’s Ethics of “Prima Facie” Duties – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Aristotle on Friendship: What Does It Take to Be a Good Friend? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: The Philosophy of Humor: What Makes Something Funny? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Virtue Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Reason is the Slave to the Passions: Hume on Reason vs. Desire – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update | Daily Nous
• Pingback: Is Immortality Desirable? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics and Absolute Poverty: Peter Singer and Effective Altruism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: What Is It To Love Someone? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethical Egoism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Mill’s Proof of the Principle of Utility – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Consequentialism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: John Stuart Mill on The Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Hope – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Existentialism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Camus on the Absurd: The Myth of Sisyphus – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Comments are closed.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Happiness Defined

What is happiness.

Coming up with a formal definition of happiness can be tricky. After all, shouldn’t we just know it when we feel it? In fact, we often use the term to describe a range of positive emotions, including amusement, joy, pride, and contentment.

But to understand the causes and effects of happiness, researchers first need to define it. For most, the term happiness is interchangeable with “subjective well-being,” which is typically measured by asking people about how satisfied they feel with their lives (evaluative), how much positive and negative emotion they tend to feel (affective), and their sense of meaning and purpose (eudaimonic). 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.”

However, it’s important to note that social and cultural factors also influence how we think about happiness. For example, studies by William Tov and others have found that people from cultures that embrace more collectivist ideals think about happiness more in terms of harmony and contentment, while more individualistic-minded people connect it to feelings of exuberance and joy. Happiness levels are also shaped by social groups, like families; happier people increase the happiness of people around them.

Though people around the world have different ways of thinking about happiness and perhaps even experience it in different ways, most involve feeling positive generally and about life overall.

What are the Limitations?

Four Ways Happiness Can Hurt You

Can feeling good ever be bad? New research says yes—and points the way to a healthier,…

Variety Is the Spice of Emotional Life

A new paper finds that cultivating a diversity of emotions—positive or negative—can…

How Much Control Do You Have Over Your Own Happiness?

Social conditions and inequality affect well-being. So, why do we keep insisting "happiness…

Featured Articles

What If You Pursued What’s Interesting Instead of Happiness?

A new book explores why we should seek a “psychologically rich life” and how to do it.

How to Stop Overthinking Your Happiness

The search for happiness can make you unhappy—but there is a research-tested solution.

Your Happiness Calendar for September 2024

This month, look for reasons to be hopeful.

Is Contentment an Underrated Goal in Life?

A new study suggests that contentment is a positive emotion with some unique benefits for people who seek it.

How Does Your Personality Affect Your Happiness?

Findings from a new study suggest that your personality may have quite a strong influence on your life satisfaction.

Why Are Some People Happy Even as They’re Dying?

Research suggests that people nearing death talk about their experience as more positive than we imagine it would be.

Why Practice It?

Many studies have found that happiness actually improves other aspects of our lives. Here is an overview of some of the good stuff that research has linked to happiness.

• Happiness is good for our health : Happier people are less likely to get sick, and they live longer.
• Happiness is associated with more satisfying romantic relationships as well as stronger friendships .
• Happier people make more money and are more productive at work .
• Happier people are more generous .
• Happier people cope better with stress and trauma .
• Happier people are more creative and are better able to see the big picture .

Of course, there will be times in life when happiness feels out of reach. That’s OK. Our unpleasant emotions are appropriate responses to difficult situations; they’re there to guide our responses and help us make meaning from challenges and adversity.

Indeed, there is a great deal of research suggesting that trying to feel or falsely express happiness in bad situations is harmful to mental and physical health—and that striving to feel constantly happy can actually diminish your overall happiness in life. Multiple studies suggest that experiencing and embracing a range of emotions, not just the positive ones, is good for our mental and physical health. It’s also important to note that injury and illness can make happiness harder to achieve. For example, concussions and long COVID are both associated with depression.

In short, happiness in life is a worthy aspiration, and there are benefits to feeling happy—but it’s not realistic or healthy to expect a constant stream of positive emotions. When you do feel unhappy, it’s important to listen to that signal. Perhaps it’s time to change what you’re doing or thinking, seek support from a friend or therapist, or work to address a challenge you are facing. During especially hard times in life, suggests the research, you might look for meaning or psychological richness in your experiences, instead of trying to force yourself to be happier.

“Aim for noticing how you really feel right at that moment—and embrace all your diverse feelings,” suggests James Baraz. This will pave the way to happiness down the line.

How Do I Cultivate It?

Our happiness is shaped by genetics, life experience, social forces,  and culture, as well as individual choices. While your control over most of those domains is limited, there are steps you can take on a personal level to increase your chances of experiencing happiness in life. And all of us can act to change culture and address inequalities that affect happiness on a collective level.

Here are some of the keys to happiness identified by researchers, along with some specific, science-based activities for strengthening skills of happiness, in ourselves and in society.

Build relationships: Perhaps the dominant finding from happiness research is that social connections are fundamental. Try these practices to strengthen trust, mutual support, and affection in your relationships:

• Best Possible Self for Relationships : Imagine your relationship going as well as it possibly could.
• Mental Subtraction of Relationships : Visualize what your life would be like without the people around you.
• Gift of Time : Invest in your relationships by spending quality time with people you care about.
• Learn more ways to strengthen relationships on our website Greater Good in Action.

Practice different kinds of appreciation. Life can be hard, because negative events and emotions are inevitable. But we can bolster our resilience by shining the light of our attention on the good things.

• Savoring Walk : Take a walk and pay attention to positive feelings and experiences, to deepen and extend them.
• Gratitude : Count your blessings on a regular basis, whether by writing a letter, keeping a journal, or just saying thanks.
• Time Capsule : Create a collection of positive experiences to surprise your future self.
• Mental Subtraction of Positive Events : Visualize what your life would be like without the good things you have.

Pay attention. Studies find that people who practice mindfulness —the moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, and external circumstances—score higher on measures of happiness, and lower on measures of anxiety and distress.

• Mindful Breathing : This meditation is the most basic way to cultivate mindful attention.
• Raisin Meditation : You can put your busy life on pause by spending a few minutes feeling and tasting a raisin in your mouth.
• Self-Compassion Break : Stressed? Self-critical? Take just a moment to speak kindly to yourself.
• Get more mindfulness exercises on Greater Good in Action.

Practice kindness. Researchers believe generosity feels good because it highlights and incentivizes positive social interactions and strengthens the social bonds that support happiness. Here are some ways to be kind.

• Do nice things for other people: Neuroscience research shows that when we do nice things for others, our brains light up in areas associated with pleasure and reward.
• Compassion Meditation : This meditation fosters feelings of compassion and concern for others by training you to notice suffering and strive to alleviate it.
• Spend money on other people: Similarly, research by Elizabeth Dunn and her colleagues finds that people report greater happiness when they spend money on others than when they spend it on themselves.
• Learn more ways to practice kindness at Greater Good in Action.

Move your body—and then rest. Exercise isn’t just good for our bodies; it’s good for our happiness. So is sleep!

• Get physical: Studies show that regular physical activity increases happiness and self-esteem, reduces anxiety and stress, and can even lift symptoms of depression. “Exercise may very well be the most effective instant happiness booster of all activities,” writes Sonja Lyubomirsky in The How of Happiness .
• Spend time in nature : People who are more connected to nature tend to experience more positive emotions, vitality, and life satisfaction.
• Then get rest: Research has consistently linked lower sleep to lower happiness . What’s more, a study of more than 900 women, led by psychologist Daniel Kahneman, found that getting just one more hour of sleep each night might have a greater effect on happiness than getting a $60,000 raise.

Address inequalities. More egalitarian countries consistently rank among the happiest in the world—and there is evidence that economic, racial, and gender inequality hurts the happiness of disadvantaged groups . Fortunately, there are steps we can take to address these inequalities.

• Remove barriers to voting. Inequality depresses the vote of low-income people, which reduces their political power. You can help address that situation by supporting organizations dedicated to voter mobilization and reform.
• Work against racial prejudice and xenophobia. There are many research-tested ways to address racial inequality , on individual and collective levels.
• Work for gender and LGBTQ+ equality. There are also evidence-based ways to reduce inequality between men and women, and to expand and protect the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.
• Support efforts to address poverty. “Economic wealth matters across cultures,” says researcher William Tov. “In every culture, wealthier people generally are happier than less wealthy people.” Fortunately, volunteering and political activism—or more specifically, the sense of meaning and purpose those involve— seem to be good for both mental and physical health . If we can help our society address poverty, says the evidence, then everyone benefits .

Of course, happiness-boosting activities don’t work equally well for everyone . Understanding yourself better can help you choose practices and exercises that align with your personality, your situation, and your goals.

• Welcome to Harvard

What is the key to finding happiness? The Harvard community explores the physical, mental, social, and spiritual aspects of living a life filled with joy.

Explore moments of joy across campus

Learn how to be happy

Is there a formula for happiness, and can you apply it to your own life? Professor Arthur Brooks thinks so.

Read more from The Harvard Gazette

Studying happiness

Explore ancient Chinese philosophy, ethics, and political theory to challenge your assumptions of what it means to be happy, live a meaningful life, and change the world.

Understanding happiness

Learn how the origins of joy can improve the way we lead organizations—and our personal lives.

Practicing happiness

Research shows that short writing exercises reliving happy moments boosted the moods of adults recovering from addiction.

The Leadership and Happiness Laboratory

The Leadership and Happiness Laboratory conducts research and creates resources for leaders to learn the science of happiness, apply it in their own lives, and share it with others.

Learn about the lab

Managing Happiness

What if you can will yourself to be happy? This free online course gives participants data-backed strategies to make themselves happier.

Take the course

Health and happiness

Research has long indicated the link between our happiness and physical health. A study from the Harvard Chan School finds a host of health benefits that accompany an optimistic attitude.

Read more from the Harvard Chan School

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

When scientists began tracking the health of 268 Harvard sophomores in 1938, they hoped the study would reveal clues to leading healthy and happy lives. They got more than they ever expected.

Health and happiness go hand in hand

No matter your current state of happiness, there are ways to boost your outlook and give your mental and physical health a lift.

Linking happiness and wellbeing

A Harvard-led study found that younger adults have the lowest scores in a dozen wellbeing measures compared to other age groups.

Finding happiness in community

The value of relationships

Robert Waldinger, director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, says one of the biggest surprises they encountered was that what makes people happy is also what helps keep them healthy—relationships.

A pet can change your life

Animals ease loneliness and boost oxytocin—the love hormone.

Mending fences

In a society roiled by division, how can we find common ground and build relationships with those who don’t share our views?

Reaching out

Research offers new reasons to pick up the phone and reconnect with that old friend.

Forgiveness can heal

Forgiveness transcends mere spiritual practice or good behavior—it fosters good mental health.

How do you measure and govern for happiness?

An international conference of academics, practitioners, corporate managers, and spiritual leaders at the Harvard Divinity School sought answers to the question of universal happiness.

Explore videos from the conference

Finding joy in our work

When working harder doesn’t work, reinvent your career

Playful summer learning

Fulfillment doesn't require big change

This summer, remember to refresh

Want to be happier? Make more free time.

Get out of your own way

You may also like

Related In Focus topics

• Healthy Living
• Mindfulness and Meditation

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

There are roughly two philosophical literatures on “happiness,” each corresponding to a different sense of the term. One uses ‘happiness’ as a value term, roughly synonymous with well-being or flourishing. The other body of work uses the word as a purely descriptive psychological term, akin to ‘depression’ or ‘tranquility’. An important project in the philosophy of happiness is simply getting clear on what various writers are talking about: what are the important meanings of the term and how do they connect? While the “well-being” sense of happiness receives significant attention in the contemporary literature on well-being, the psychological notion is undergoing a revival as a major focus of philosophical inquiry, following on recent developments in the science of happiness. This entry focuses on the psychological sense of happiness (for the well-being notion, see the entry on well-being ). The main accounts of happiness in this sense are hedonism, the life satisfaction theory, and the emotional state theory. Leaving verbal questions behind, we find that happiness in the psychological sense has always been an important concern of philosophers. Yet the significance of happiness for a good life has been hotly disputed in recent decades. Further questions of contemporary interest concern the relation between the philosophy and science of happiness, as well as the role of happiness in social and political decision-making.

1.1 Two senses of ‘happiness’

1.2 clarifying our inquiry, 2.1 the chief candidates, 2.2 methodology: settling on a theory, 2.3 life satisfaction versus affect-based accounts, 2.4 hedonism versus emotional state, 2.5 hybrid accounts, 3.1 can happiness be measured, 3.2 empirical findings: overview, 3.3 the sources of happiness, 4.1 doubts about the value of happiness, 4.2 restoring happiness to the theory of well-being, 4.3 is happiness overrated, 5.1 normative issues, 5.2 mistakes in the pursuit of happiness, 5.3 the politics of happiness, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the meanings of ‘happiness’.

What is happiness? This question has no straightforward answer, because the meaning of the question itself is unclear. What exactly is being asked? Perhaps you want to know what the word ‘happiness’ means. In that case your inquiry is linguistic. Chances are you had something more interesting in mind: perhaps you want to know about the thing , happiness, itself. Is it pleasure, a life of prosperity, something else? Yet we can’t answer that question until we have some notion of what we mean by the word.

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. Just as inquiry about pleasure or depression fundamentally concerns questions of psychology, inquiry about happiness in this sense—call it the (long-term) “psychological sense”—is fundamentally the study of certain mental states. What is this state of mind we call happiness? Typical answers to this question include life satisfaction, pleasure, or a positive emotional condition.

Having answered that question, a further question arises: how valuable is this mental state? Since ‘happiness’ in this sense is just a psychological term, you could intelligibly say that happiness isn’t valuable at all. Perhaps you are a high-achieving intellectual who thinks that only ignoramuses can be happy. On this sort of view, happy people are to be pitied, not envied. The present article will center on happiness in the psychological sense.

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 . (For further discussion, see the entry on well-being . Whether these terms are really equivalent remains a matter of dispute, but this article will usually treat them as interchangeable.) “Happiness” in this sense concerns what benefits a person, is good for her, makes her better off, serves her interests, or is desirable for her for her sake. To be high in well-being is to be faring well, doing well, fortunate, or in an enviable condition. Ill-being, or doing badly, may call for sympathy or pity, whereas we envy or rejoice in the good fortune of others, and feel gratitude for our own. Being good for someone differs from simply being good, period: perhaps it is always good, period, for you to be honest; yet it may not always be good for you , as when it entails self-sacrifice. Not coincidentally, the word ‘happiness’ derives from the term for good fortune, or “good hap,” and indeed the terms used to translate it in other languages often have similar roots. In this sense of the term—call it the “well-being sense”—happiness refers to a life of well-being or flourishing: a life that goes well for you.

Importantly, to ascribe happiness in the well-being sense is to make a value judgment : namely, that the person has whatever it is that benefits a person. [ 1 ] If you and I and have different values, then we may well differ about which lives we consider happy. I might think Genghis Khan had a happy life, because I think what matters for well-being is getting what you want; while you deny this because you think a life of evildoing, however “successful,” is sad and impoverished.

Theories of well-being—and hence of “happiness” in the well-being sense—come in three basic flavors, according to the best-known taxonomy (Parfit 1984): hedonism, desire theories, and objective list theories. Whereas hedonists identify well-being roughly with experiences of pleasure, desire theorists equate it with the satisfaction of one’s desires— actually getting what you want, versus merely having certain experiences. Both hedonism and desire theories are in some sense subjectivist, since they ground well-being in the individual’s subjective states. Objective list theorists, by contrast, think some things benefit us independently of our attitudes or feelings: there are objective prudential goods. Aristotelians are the best-known example: they take well-being ( eudaimonia ) to consist in a life of virtuous activity—or more broadly, the fulfillment of our human capacities. A passive but contented couch potato may be getting what he wants, and he may enjoy it. But he would not, on Aristotelian and other objective list theories, count as doing well, or leading a happy life.

Now we can sharpen the initial question somewhat: when you ask what happiness is, are you asking what sort of life benefits a person? If so, then your question concerns matters of value, namely what is good for people—the sort of thing that ethical theorists are trained to address. Alternatively, perhaps you simply want to know about the nature of a certain state of mind—happiness in the psychological sense. In this case, some sort of psychological inquiry will be needed, either philosophical or scientific. (Laypersons often have neither sort of question in mind, but are really asking about the sources of happiness. Thus it might be claimed, say, that “happiness is being with good friends.” This is not a view about the nature or definition of happiness, but rather a theory about the sorts of things that tend to make us happy. It leaves unanswered, or takes for granted, the question of just what happiness is , such that friends are a good source of it.)

In short, philosophical “theories of happiness” can be about either of at least two different things: well-being, or a state of mind. [ 2 ] Accordingly, there are essentially two bodies of philosophical literature about “happiness” and two sets of debates about its nature, though writers often fail to distinguish them. Such failures have generated much confusion, sometimes yielding bogus disagreements that prove to be merely verbal. [ 3 ] For instance, some psychologists identify “happiness” with attitudes of life satisfaction while remaining neutral on questions of value, or whether Bentham, Mill, Aristotle, or any other thinker about the good life was correct. Such researchers employ the term in the psychological sense. Yet it is sometimes objected against such claims that life satisfaction cannot suffice for “happiness” because other things, like achievement or knowledge, matter for human well-being. The objectors are confused: their opponents have made no claims about well-being at all, and the two “sides,” as it were, are simply using ‘happiness’ to talk about different things. One might just as sensibly object to an economist’s tract on “banks” that it has nothing to say about rivers and streams.

Which use of ‘happiness’ corresponds to the true meaning of the term in contemporary English? Arguably, both. The well-being usage clearly dominates in the historical literature through at least the early modern era, for instance in translations of the ancient Greeks’ ‘ eudaimonia ’ or the Latin ‘ beatitudo ’, though this translation has long been a source of controversy. Jefferson’s famous reference to “the pursuit of happiness” probably employed the well-being sense. Even later writers such as Mill may have used the term in its well-being sense, though it is often difficult to tell since well-being itself is often taken to consist in mental states like pleasure. In ordinary usage, the abstract noun ‘happiness’ often invites a well-being reading. And the locution ‘happy life ’ may not naturally take a psychological interpretation, for the simple reason that lives aren’t normally regarded as psychological entities.

Contrast this with the very different meaning that seems to attach to talk of “ being happy.” Here it is much less clear that we are talking about a property of a person’s life; it seems rather to be a property of the person herself. To be happy, it seems, is just to be in a certain sort of psychological state or condition. Similarly when we say that so-and-so “is happy” (as opposed to saying that he is leading a happy life). This psychological usage, arguably, predominates in the current vernacular. Researchers engaged in the self-described “science of happiness” usually do not take themselves to be making value judgments when they proclaim individuals in their studies to be happy. Nor, when asserting that a life satisfaction study shows Utahans to be happier than New Yorkers, are they committing themselves to the tendentious claim that Utahans are better off . (If they are, then the psychology journals that are publishing this research may need to revise their peer-review protocols to include ethicists among their referees.) And the many recent popular books on happiness, as well as innumerable media accounts of research on happiness, nearly all appear to take it for granted that they are talking about nothing more than a psychological condition.

Henceforth ‘happiness’ will be used in the long-term psychological sense, unless otherwise specified. Note, however, that a number of important books and other works on “happiness” in recent decades have employed the well-being sense of the term. Books of this sort appear to include Almeder 2000, Annas 1993, 2011, Bloomfield 2014, Cahn and Vitrano 2015, Kenny and Kenny 2006, McMahon 2005, McPherson 2020, Noddings 2003, Russell 2013, White 2006, and Vitrano 2014, though again it is not always clear how a given author uses the term. For discussion of the well-being notion, see the entry on well-being . [ 4 ]

2. Theories of happiness

Philosophers have most commonly distinguished two accounts of happiness: hedonism , and the life satisfaction theory. Hedonists identify happiness with the individual’s balance of pleasant over unpleasant experience, in the same way that welfare hedonists do. [ 5 ] The difference is that the hedonist about happiness need not accept the stronger doctrine of welfare hedonism; this emerges clearly in arguments against the classical Utilitarian focus on happiness as the aim of social choice. Such arguments tend to grant the identification of happiness with pleasure, but challenge the idea that this should be our primary or sole concern, and often as well the idea that happiness is all that matters for well-being.

Life satisfaction theories identify happiness with having a favorable attitude toward one’s life as a whole. This basic schema can be filled out in a variety of ways, but typically involves some sort of global judgment: an endorsement or affirmation of one’s life as a whole. This judgment may be more or less explicit, and may involve or accompany some form of affect. It may also involve or accompany some aggregate of judgments about particular items or domains within one’s life. [ 6 ]

A third theory, the emotional state view, departs from hedonism in a different way: instead of identifying happiness with pleasant experience, it identifies happiness with an agent’s emotional condition as a whole, of what is often called “emotional well-being.” [ 7 ] This includes nonexperiential aspects of emotions and moods (or perhaps just moods), and excludes pleasures that don’t directly involve the individual’s emotional state. It might also include a person’s propensity for experiencing various moods, which can vary over time, though several authors have argued against this suggestion (e.g., Hill 2007, Klausen 2015, Rossi 2018). Happiness on such a view is more nearly the opposite of depression or anxiety—a broad psychological condition—whereas hedonistic happiness is simply opposed to unpleasantness. For example, a deeply distressed individual might distract herself enough with constant activity to maintain a mostly pleasant existence—broken only by tearful breakdowns during the odd quiet moment—thus perhaps counting as happy on a hedonistic but not emotional state view. The states involved in happiness, on an emotional state view, can range widely, far more so that the ordinary notion of mood or emotion. On one proposal, happiness involves three broad categories of affective state, including “endorsement” states like joy versus sadness, “engagement” states like flow or a sense of vitality, and “attunement” states like tranquility, emotional expansiveness versus compression, and confidence. Given the departures from commonsensical notions of being in a “good mood,” happiness is characterized in this proposal as “psychic affirmation,” or “psychic flourishing” in pronounced forms.

A fourth family of views, hybrid theories , attempts an irenic solution to our diverse intuitions about happiness: identify happiness with both life satisfaction and pleasure or emotional state, perhaps along with other states such as domain satisfactions. The most obvious candidate here is subjective well-being , which is typically defined as a compound of life satisfaction, domain satisfactions, and positive and negative affect. (Researchers often seem to identify happiness with subjective well-being, sometimes with life satisfaction, and perhaps most commonly with emotional or hedonic state.) The chief appeal of hybrid theories is their inclusiveness: all the components of subjective well-being seem important, and there is probably no component of subjective well-being that does not at times get included in “happiness” in ordinary usage.

How do we determine which theory is correct? Traditional philosophical methods of conceptual or linguistic analysis can give us some guidance, indicating that some accounts offer a better fit with the ordinary concept of happiness. Thus it has been argued that hedonism is false to the concept of happiness as we know it; the intuitions taken to support hedonism point instead to an emotional state view (Haybron 2001). And some have argued that life satisfaction is compatible with profoundly negative emotional states like depression—a suffering artist might not value emotional matters much, and wholeheartedly affirm her life (Carson 1981, Davis 1981b, Haybron 2005, Feldman 2010). Yet it might seem counterintuitive to deem such a person happy. At the same time, people do sometimes use ‘happiness’ to denote states of life satisfaction: life satisfaction theories do seem faithful to some ordinary uses of ‘happiness’. The trouble is that HAPPINESS appears to be a “mongrel concept,” as Ned Block (1995) called the concept of consciousness: the ordinary notion is something of a mess. We use the term to denote different things in different contexts, and often have no clear notion of what we are referring to. This suggests that accounts of happiness must be somewhat revisionary, and that we must assess theories on grounds other than simple fidelity to the lay concept of happiness—“descriptive adequacy,” in Sumner’s (1996) terms. One candidate is practical utility: which conception of happiness best answers to our interests in the notion? We talk about happiness because we care about it. The question is why we care about it, and which psychological states within the extension of the ordinary term make the most sense of this concern. Even if there is no simple answer to the question what happiness is, it may well turn out that our interests in happiness cluster so strongly around a particular psychological kind that happiness can best, or most profitably, be understood in terms of that type of state (Haybron 2003). Alternatively, we may choose to distinguish different varieties of happiness. It will be less important how we use the word, however, than that we be clear about the nature and significance of the phenomena that interest us.

The debate over theories of happiness falls along a couple of lines. The most interesting questions concern the choice between life satisfaction and affect-based views like hedonism and the emotional state theory. [ 8 ] Proponents of life satisfaction see two major advantages to their account. First, life satisfaction is holistic , ranging over the whole of one’s life, or the totality of one’s life over a certain period of time. It reflects not just the aggregate of moments in one’s life, but also the global quality of one’s life taken as a whole (but see Raibley 2010). And we seem to care not just about the total quantity of good in our lives, but about its distribution—a happy ending, say, counts for more than a happy middle (Slote 1982, Velleman 1991). Second, life satisfaction seems more closely linked to our priorities than affect is, as the suffering artist case illustrates. While a focus on affect makes sense insofar as we care about such matters, most people care about other things as well, and how their lives are going relative to their priorities may not be fully mirrored in their affective states. Life satisfaction theories thus seem to fit more closely with liberal ideals of individual sovereignty, on which how well my life is going for me is for me to decide. My satisfaction with my life seems to embody that judgment. Of course a theory of happiness need not capture everything that matters for well-being; the point is that a life satisfaction view might explain why we should care so much about happiness, and so enjoy substantive as well as intuitive support. [ 9 ]

But several objections have been raised against life satisfaction views. The most common complaint has already been noted, namely that a person could apparently be satisfied with her life even while leading a highly unpleasant or emotionally distressed existence, and it can seem counterintuitive to regard such a person as happy (see section 2.2). Some life satisfaction theorists deny that such cases are possible (Benditt 1978), but it could also be argued that such possibilities are part and parcel of life satisfaction’s appeal: some people may not get much pleasure out of life because they don’t care particularly about affective matters, and a life satisfaction theory allows that they can, in their own fashion, be happy.

Two other objections are more substantive, raising questions about whether life satisfaction has the right sort of importance. One concern is whether people often enough have well-grounded attitudes of life satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Evaluating one’s life as a whole can be a complicated business, and there is some question whether people typically have well-defined attitudes toward their lives that accurately reflect how well their lives measure up relative to their priorities. Some research, for instance, suggests that life satisfaction reports tend to reflect judgments made on the spot, drawing on whatever information comes readily to mind, with substantial influences by transient contextual factors like the weather, finding a dime, etc. (Schwarz and Strack 1999). Debate persists over whether this work undermines the significance of life satisfaction judgments, but it does raise a question whether life satisfaction attitudes tend to be well-enough grounded to have the kind of importance that people normally ascribe to happiness.

The third objection is somewhat intricate, so it will require some explaining. The claim is that a wide range of life satisfaction attitudes might be consistent with individuals’ perceptions of how well their lives are going relative to what they care about, raising doubts about the importance of life satisfaction (Haybron 2016). You might reasonably be satisfied when getting very little of what you want, or dissatisfied when getting most of what you want. One reason for this is that people tend to have many incommensurable values, leaving it open how to add them up. Looking at the various ups and downs of your life, it may be arbitrary whether to rate your life a four out of ten, or a seven. A second reason is that life satisfaction attitudes are not merely assessments of subjective success or personal welfare: they involve assessments of whether one’s life is good enough —satisfactory. Yet people’s values may radically underdetermine where they should set the bar for a “good enough” life, again rendering the judgment somewhat arbitrary. Given your values, you might reasonably be satisfied with a two, or require a nine to be satisfied. While it may seem important how well people see their lives going relative to what they care about, it is not obviously so important whether people see their lives going well enough that they are willing to judge them satisfactory.

If life satisfaction attitudes are substantially arbitrary relative to subjective success, then people might reasonably base those attitudes on other factors, such as ethical ideals (e.g., valuing gratitude or noncomplacency) or pragmatic concerns (e.g., comforting oneself). Shifts in perspective might also reasonably alter life satisfaction attitudes. After the funeral, you might be highly satisfied with your life, whereas the high school reunion leaves you dissatisfied; yet neither judgment need be mistaken, or less authoritative.

As a result, life satisfaction attitudes may be poor indicators of well-being, even from the individual’s own point of view. That people in a given country register high levels of life satisfaction may reflect nothing more than that they set the bar extremely low; they might be satisfied with anything short of pure agony. Another country’s citizens might be dissatisfied with their lives, but only because they set the bar much higher. Relative to what they care about, people in the dissatisfied nation could be better off than those in the satisfied nation. To take another example, a cancer patient might be more satisfied with his life than he was before the diagnosis, for he now looks at his life from a different perspective and emphasizes different virtues like fortitude and gratitude as opposed to (say) humility and non-complacency. Yet he need not think himself better off at all: he might believe himself worse off than he was when he was less satisfied. Neither judgment need seem to him or us to be mistaken: it’s just that he now looks at his life differently. Indeed, he might think he’s doing badly, even as he is satisfied with his life: he endorses it, warts and all, and is grateful just have his not-so-good life rather than some of the much worse alternatives.

For present purposes, the worry is that life satisfaction may not have the kind of significance happiness is normally thought to have. This may pose a difficulty for the identification of life satisfaction with happiness: for people frequently seem to use happiness as a proxy for well-being, a reasonably concrete and value-free stand-in that facilitates quick-and-dirty assessments of welfare. Given the discovery that someone is happy, we might infer that he is doing well; if we learn that someone is unhappy, we may conclude that she is doing poorly. Such inferences are defeasible: if we later find that the happy Ned’s wife and friends secretly hate him, we need not decide that he isn’t happy after all; we simply withdraw the conclusion that he is doing well. So long as happiness tracks well-being well enough in most cases, this sort of practice is perfectly respectable. But if we identify happiness with life satisfaction, then we may have a problem: maybe Sally is satisfied only because she values being grateful for the good things in life. This sort of case may not be merely a theoretical possibility: perhaps the very high rates of self-reported life satisfaction in the United States and many other places substantially reflects a broad acceptance of norms of gratitude and a general tendency to emphasize the positives, or perhaps a sense that not to endorse your life amounts to a lack of self-regard. It is not implausible that most people, even those enduring great hardship, can readily find grounds for satisfaction with their lives. Life may have to be pretty hard for a person to be incapable of affirming it.

Despite these concerns there is significant intuitive appeal in the idea that to be happy is to be satisfied with one’s life. Perhaps a different way of conceiving life satisfaction, for instance dispensing with the global judgment and aggregating particular satisfactions and dissatisfactions, would lessen the force of these objections. Alternatively, it is possible that idealized or qualified forms of life satisfaction would mitigate these concerns for some purposes, such as a theory of well-being. [ 10 ]

A second set of issues concerns the differences between the two affect-based views, hedonism and emotional state. The appeal of hedonism is fairly obvious: the pleasantness of our experience is plainly a matter of great significance; many have claimed it to be the only thing that matters. What, by contrast, motivates the emotional state account, which bears obvious similarities to hedonism yet excludes many pleasures from happiness? The question of motivation appears to be the chief worry facing the emotional state theory: what’s to be gained by focusing on emotional state rather than pleasure?

One argument for taking such a view is intuitive: some find it implausible to think that psychologically superficial pleasures invariably make a difference in how happy one is—the typical pleasure of eating a cracker, say, or even the intense pleasure of an orgasm that nonetheless fails to move one, as can happen with meaningless sexual activity. The intuitive distinction seems akin to distinctions made by some ancient philosophers; consider, for instance, the following passage from Epictetus’s Discourses :

‘I have a headache.’ Well, do not say ‘Alas!’ ‘I have an earache.’ Do not say ‘Alas!’ And I am not saying that it is not permissible to groan, only do not groan in the centre of your being . ( Discourses , 1.18.19, emphasis added).

The Stoics did not expect us never to feel unpleasant sensations, which would plainly be impossible; rather, the idea was not to let such things get to us , to impact our emotional conditions.

Why should anyone care to press such a distinction in characterizing happiness? For most people, the hedonic difference between happiness on an emotional state versus a hedonistic view is probably minimal. But while little will be lost, what will be gained? One possibility is that the more “central” affects involving our emotional conditions may bear a special relation to the person or the self , whereas more “peripheral” affects, like the pleasantness of eating a cracker, might pertain to the subpersonal aspects of our psychologies. Since well-being is commonly linked to ideas of self-fulfillment, this sort of distinction might signal a difference in the importance of these states. Another reason to focus on emotional condition rather than experience alone may be the greater psychological depth of the former: its impact on our mental lives, physiology, and behavior is arguably deeper and more pervasive. This enhances the explanatory and predictive significance of happiness, and more importantly its desirability: happiness on this view is not merely pleasant, but a major source of pleasure and other good outcomes (Fredrickson 2004, Lyubomirsky, King et al . 2005). Compare health on this score: while many think it matters chiefly or entirely because of its connection with pleasure, there are few skeptics about the importance of health. As well, emotional state views may capture the idea that happiness concerns the individual’s psychological orientation or disposition : to be happy, on an emotional state theory, is not just to be subjected to a certain sequence of experiences, but for one’s very being to manifest a favorable orientation toward the conditions of one’s life—a kind of psychic affirmation of one’s life. This reflects a point of similarity with life satisfaction views of happiness: contra hedonism, both views take happiness to be substantially dispositional, involving some sort of favorable orientation toward one’s life. But life satisfaction views tend to emphasize reflective or rational endorsement, whereas emotional state views emphasize the verdicts of our emotional natures.

While hedonism and emotional state theories are major contenders in the contemporary literature, all affect-based theories confront the worries, noted earlier, that motivate life satisfaction views—notably, their looser connection with people’s priorities, as well as their limited ability to reflect the quality of people’s lives taken as a whole.

Given the limitations of narrower theories of happiness, a hybrid account such as a subjective well-being theory may seem an attractive solution. This strategy has not been fully explored in the philosophical literature, though Sumner’s “life satisfaction” theory may best be classified as a hybrid (1996; see also Martin 2012). In any event, a hybrid approach draws objections of its own. If we arrive at a hybrid theory by this route, it could seem like either the marriage of two unpromising accounts, or of a promising account with an unpromising one. Such a union may not yield wholesome results. Second, people have different intuitions about what counts as happiness, so that no theory can accommodate all of them. Any theory that tries to thus risks pleasing no one. A third concern is that the various components of any hybrid are liable to matter for quite different reasons, so that happiness, thus understood, might fail to answer to any coherent set of concerns. Ascriptions of happiness could be relatively uninformative if they cast their net too widely.

3. The science of happiness

With the explosive rise of empirical research on happiness, a central question is how far, and how, happiness might be measured. [ 11 ] There seems to be no in-principle barrier to the idea of measuring, at least roughly, how happy people are. Investigators may never enjoy the precision of the “hedonimeter” once envisaged by Edgeworth to show just how happy a person is (Edgeworth 1881). Indeed, such a device might be impossible even in principle, since happiness might involve multiple dimensions that either cannot be precisely quantified or summed together. If so, it could still be feasible to develop approximate measures of happiness, or at least its various dimensions. Similarly, depression may not admit of precise quantification in a single number, yet many useful if imprecise measures of depression exist. In the case of happiness, it is plausible that even current measures provide information about how anxious, cheerful, satisfied, etc. people are, and thus tell us something about their happiness. Even the simplest self-report measures used in the literature have been found to correlate well with many intuitively relevant variables, such as friends’ reports, smiling, physiological measures, health, longevity, and so forth (Pavot 2008).

Importantly, most scientific research needs only to discern patterns across large numbers of individuals—to take an easy case, determining whether widows tend to be less happy than newlyweds—and this is compatible with substantial unreliability in assessing individual happiness. Similarly, an inaccurate thermometer might be a poor guide to the temperature, but readings from many such thermometers could correlate fairly well with actual temperatures—telling us, for instance, that Minnesota is colder than Florida.

This point reveals an important caveat: measures of happiness could correlate well with how happy people are, thus telling us which groups of people tend to be happier, while being completely wrong about absolute levels of happiness. Self-reports of happiness, for instance, might correctly indicate that unemployed people are considerably less happy than those with jobs. But every one of those reports could be wrong, say if everyone is unhappy yet claims to be happy, or vice-versa, so long as the unemployed report lower happiness than the employed. Similarly, bad thermometers may show that Minnesota is colder than Florida without giving the correct temperature.

Two morals emerge from these reflections. First, self-report measures of happiness could be reliable guides to relative happiness, though telling us little about how happy, in absolute terms, people are. We may know who is happier, that is, but not whether people are in fact happy. Second, even comparisons of relative happiness will be inaccurate if the groups being compared systematically bias their reports in different ways. This worry is particularly acute for cross-cultural comparisons of happiness, where differing norms about happiness may undermine the comparability of self-reports. The French might report lower happiness than Americans, for instance, not because their lives are less satisfying or pleasant, but because they tend to put a less positive spin on things. For this reason it may be useful to employ instruments, including narrower questions or physiological measures, that are less prone to cultural biasing. [ 12 ]

The discussion thus far has assumed that people can be wrong about how happy they are. Is this plausible? Some have argued that (sincerely) self-reported happiness cannot, even in principle, be mistaken. If you think you’re happy, goes a common sentiment, then you are happy. This claim is not plausible on a hedonistic or emotional state view of happiness, since those theories take judgments of happiness to encompass not just how one is feeling at the moment but also past states, and memories of those can obviously be spurious. Further, it has been argued that even judgments of how one feels at the present moment may often be mistaken, particularly regarding moods like anxiety. [ 13 ]

The idea that sincere self-reports of happiness are incorrigible can only be correct, it seems, given a quite specific conception of happiness—a kind of life satisfaction theory of happiness on which people count as satisfied with their lives so long as they are disposed to judge explicitly that they are satisfied with their lives on the whole. Also assumed here is that self-reports of happiness are in fact wholly grounded in life satisfaction judgments like these—that is, that people take questions about “happiness” to be questions about life satisfaction. Given these assumptions, we can plausibly conclude that self-reports of happiness are incorrigible. One question is whether happiness, thus conceived, is very important. As well, it is unlikely that respondents invariably interpret happiness questions as being about life satisfaction. At any rate, even life satisfaction theorists might balk at this variant of the account, since life satisfaction is sometimes taken to involve, not just explicit global judgments of life satisfaction, but also our responses to the particular things or domains we care about. Some will hesitate to deem satisfied people who hate many of the important things in their lives, however satisfied they claim to be with their lives as a whole.

In a similar vein, the common practice of measuring happiness simply by asking people to report explicitly on how “happy” they are is sometimes defended on the grounds that it lets people decide for themselves what happiness is. The reasoning again seems to presuppose, controversially, that self-reports of happiness employ a life satisfaction view of happiness, the idea being that whether you are satisfied (“happy”) will depend on what you care about. Alternatively, the point might be literally to leave it up to the respondent to decide whether ‘happy’ means hedonic state, emotional state, life satisfaction, or something else. Thus one respondent’s “I’m happy” might mean “my experience is generally pleasant,” while another’s might mean “I am satisfied with my life as a whole.” It is not clear, however, that asking ambiguous questions of this sort is a useful enterprise, since different respondents will in effect be answering different questions.

To measure happiness through self-reports, then, it may be wiser to employ terms other than ‘happiness’ and its cognates—terms whose meaning is relatively well-known and fixed. In other words, researchers should decide in advance what they want to measure—be it life satisfaction, hedonic state, emotional state, or something else—and then ask questions that refer unambiguously to those states. [ 14 ] This stratagem may be all the more necessary in cross-cultural work, where finding suitable translations of ‘happy’ can be daunting—particularly when the English meaning of the term remains a matter of contention (Wierzbicka 2004).

This entry focuses on subjective well-being studies, since that work is standardly deemed “happiness” research. But psychological research on well-being can take other forms, notably in the “eudaimonic”—commonly opposed to “hedonic”—literature, which assesses a broader range of indicators taken to represent objective human needs, such as meaning, personal growth, relatedness, autonomy, competence, etc. [ 15 ] (The assimilation of subjective well-being to the “hedonic” realm may be misleading, since life satisfaction seems primarily to be a non -hedonic value, as noted earlier.) Other well-being instruments may not clearly fall under either the “happiness” or eudaimonic rubrics, for instance extending subjective well-being measures by adding questions about the extent to which activities are seen as meaningful or worthwhile (White and Dolan 2009). An important question going forward is how far well-being research needs to incorporate indicators beyond subjective well-being.

The scientific literature on happiness has grown to proportions far too large for this article to do more than briefly touch on a few highlights. [ 16 ] Here is a sampling of oft-cited claims:

• Most people are happy
• People adapt to most changes, tending to return over time to their happiness “set point”
• People are prone to make serious mistakes in assessing and pursuing happiness
• Material prosperity has a surprisingly modest impact on happiness

The first claim, that most people are happy, appears to be a consensus position among subjective well-being researchers (for a seminal argument, see Diener and Diener 1996). The contention reflects three lines of evidence: most people, in most places, report being happy; most people report being satisfied with their lives; and most people experience more positive affect than negative. On any of the major theories of happiness, then, the evidence seems to show that most people are, indeed, happy. Yet this conclusion might be resisted, on a couple of grounds. First, life satisfaction theorists might question whether self-reports of life satisfaction suffice to establish that people are in fact satisfied with their lives. Perhaps self-reports can be mistaken, say if the individual believes herself satisfied yet shows many signs of dissatisfaction in her behavior, for instance complaining about or striving to change important things in her life. Second, defenders of affect-based theories—hedonistic and emotional state views—might reject the notion that a bare majority of positive affect suffices for happiness. While the traditional view among hedonists has indeed been that happiness requires no more than a >1:1 ratio of positive to negative affect, this contention has received little defense and has been disputed in the recent literature. Some investigators have claimed that “flourishing” requires greater than a 3:1 ratio of positive to negative affect, as this ratio might represent a threshold for broadly favorable psychological functioning (e.g., Larsen and Prizmic 2008). While the evidence for any specific ratio is highly controversial, if anything like this proportion were adopted as the threshold for happiness, on a hedonistic or emotional state theory, then some of the evidence taken to show that people are happy could in fact show the opposite. In any event, the empirical claim relies heavily on nontrivial philosophical views about the nature of happiness, illustrating one way in which philosophical work on happiness can inform scientific research.

The second claim, regarding adaptation and set points, reflects well-known findings that many major life events, like being disabled in an accident or winning the lottery, appear strongly to impact happiness only for a relatively brief period, after which individuals may return to a level of happiness not very different from before. [ 17 ] As well, twin studies have found that subjective well-being is substantially heritable, with .50 being a commonly accepted figure. Consequently many researchers have posited that each individual has a characteristic “set point” level of happiness, toward which he tends to gravitate over time. Such claims have caused some consternation over whether the pursuit and promotion of happiness are largely futile enterprises (Lykken and Tellegen 1996; Millgram 2000). However, the dominant view now seems to be that the early claims about extreme adaptation and set points were exaggerated: while adaptation is a very real phenomenon, many factors—including disability—can have substantial, and lasting, effects on how happy people are. [ 18 ] This point was already apparent from the literature on correlates and causes of happiness, discussed below: if things like relationships and engaging work are important for happiness, then happiness is probably not simply a matter of personality or temperament. As well, the large cross-national differences in measured happiness are unlikely to be entirely an artifact of personality variables. Note that even highly heritable traits can be strongly susceptible to improvement. Better living conditions have raised the stature of men in the Netherlands by eight inches—going from short (five foot four) to tall (over six feet)—in the last 150 years (Fogel 2005). Yet height is considered much more heritable than happiness, with typical heritability estimates ranging from .60 to over .90 (e.g., Silventoinen, Sammalisto et al . 2003). [ 19 ]

The question of mistakes will be taken up in section 5.2. But the last claim—that material prosperity has relatively modest impacts on happiness—has lately become the subject of heated debate. For some time the standard view among subjective well-being researchers was that, beyond a low threshold where basic needs are met, economic gains have only a small impact on happiness levels. According to the well-known “Easterlin Paradox,” for instance, wealthier people do tend to be happier within nations, but richer nations are little happier than less prosperous counterparts, and—most strikingly—economic growth has virtually no impact (Easterlin 1974). In the U.S., for example, measured happiness has not increased significantly since at least 1947, despite massive increases in wealth and income. In short, once you’re out of poverty, absolute levels of wealth and income make little difference in how happy people are.

Against these claims, some authors have argued that absolute income has a large impact on happiness across the income spectrum (e.g., Stevenson and Wolfers 2008). The question continues to be much debated, but in 2010 a pair of large-scale studies using Gallup data sets, including improved measures of life satisfaction and affect, suggested that both sides may be partly right (Kahneman and Deaton 2010; Diener, Ng et al . 2010). Surveying large numbers of Americans in one case, and what is claimed to be the first globally representative sample of humanity in the other, these studies found that income does indeed correlate substantially (.44 in the global sample), at all levels, with life satisfaction—strictly speaking, a “life evaluation” measure that asks respondents to rate their lives without saying whether they are satisfied. Yet the correlation of household income with the affect measures is far weaker: globally, .17 for positive affect, –.09 for negative affect; and in the United States, essentially zero above $75,000 (though quite strong at low income levels). For more recent discussions of empirical work, see Jebb et al. 2018 along with relevant chapters in Diener et al. 2018 and the annual World Happiness Reports from 2012 onward (Helliwell et al. 2012). Research on the complex money-happiness relationship resists simple characterization, but a crude summary is that the connection tends to be positive and substantial, strong at lower income levels while modest to weak or even negative at higher incomes, and stronger and less prone to satiation for life evaluation than emotional well-being metrics. But again, these are very rough generalizations that gloss over a variety of important factors and admit of many exceptions across both individuals and societies.

In short, the relationship between money and happiness may depend on which theory of happiness we accept: on a life satisfaction view, the relationship may be strong; whereas affect-based views may yield a much weaker connection, again above some modest threshold. Here, again, philosophical views about the nature and significance of happiness may play an important role in understanding empirical results and their practical upshot. Economic growth, for instance, has long been a top priority for governments, and findings about its impact on human well-being may have substantial implications for policy.

It is important to note that studies of this nature focus on generic trends, not specific cases, and there is no dispute that significant exceptions exist—notably, populations that enjoy high levels of happiness amid low levels of material prosperity. Among others, a number of Latin American countries, Maasai herders, Inughuit hunter-gatherers, and Amish communities have registered highly positive results in subjective well-being studies, sometimes higher than those in many affluent nations, and numerous informal accounts accord with the data. [ 20 ] Such “positive outliers” suggest that some societies can support high levels of happiness with extremely modest material holdings. The importance of money for happiness may depend strongly on what kind of society one inhabits. An interesting question, particularly in light of common environmental concerns, is how far the lessons of such societies can, or should, be transferred to other social forms, where material attainment and happiness are presently more tightly coupled. Perhaps some degree of decoupling of happiness and money would be desirable.

So the role of money in happiness appears, at this juncture, to be a mixed bag, depending heavily on how we conceive of happiness and what range of societies we are considering. What (else), then, does matter most for happiness? There is no definitive list of the main sources of happiness in the literature, partly because it is not clear how to divide them up. But the following items seem generally to be accepted as among the chief correlates of happiness: supportive relationships, engagement in interesting and challenging activities, material and physical security, a sense of meaning or purpose, a positive outlook, and autonomy or control. [ 21 ] Significant correlates may also include—among many others—religion, good governance, trust, helping others, values (e.g., having non-materialistic values), achieving goals, not being unemployed, and connection with the natural environment. [ 22 ]

An illustrative study of the correlates of happiness from a global perspective is the Gallup World Poll study noted earlier (Diener, Ng et al . 2010; see also Jebb et al. 2020). In that study, the life satisfaction measure was more strongly related to material prosperity, as noted above: household income, along with possession of luxury conveniences and satisfaction with standard of living. The affect measures, by contrast, correlated most strongly with what the authors call “psychosocial prosperity”: whether people reported being treated with respect in the last day, having family and friends to count on, learning something new, doing what they do best, and choosing how their time was spent.

What these results show depends partly on the reliability of the measures. One possible source of error is that this study might exaggerate the relationship between life satisfaction and material attainments through the use of a “ladder” scale for life evaluation, ladders being associated with material aspirations. Errors might also arise through salience biases whereby material concerns might be more easily recalled than other important values, such as whether one has succeeded in having children; or through differences in positivity biases across income levels (perhaps wealthier people tend to be more “positive-responding” than poorer individuals). Another question is whether the affect measures adequately track the various dimensions of people’s emotional lives. However, the results are roughly consonant with other research, so they are unlikely to be entirely an artifact of the instruments used in this study. [ 23 ] A further point of uncertainty is the causal story behind the correlations—whether the correlates, like psychosocial prosperity, cause happiness; whether happiness causes them; whether other factors cause both; or, as is likely, some combination of the three.

Such concerns duly noted, the research plausibly suggests that, on average, material progress has some tendency to help people to better get what they want in life, as found in the life satisfaction measures, while relationships and engaging activities are more important for people’s emotional lives. What this means for happiness depends on which view of happiness is correct.

4. The importance of happiness

Were you to survey public attitudes about the value of happiness, at least in liberal Western democracies, you would likely find considerable support for the proposition that happiness is all that really matters for human well-being. Many philosophers over the ages have likewise endorsed such a view, typically assuming a hedonistic account of happiness. (A few, like Almeder 2000, have identified well-being with happiness understood as life satisfaction.)

Most philosophers, however, have rejected hedonistic and other mental state accounts of well-being, and with them the idea that happiness could suffice for well-being. [ 24 ] (See the entry on well-being .) Objections to mental state theories of well-being tend to cluster around two sets of concerns. First, it is widely believed that the non-mental conditions of our lives matter for well-being: whether our families really love us, whether our putative achievements are genuine, whether the things we care about actually obtain. The most influential objection of this sort is Robert Nozick’s experience machine case, wherein we are asked to imagine a virtual reality device that can perfectly simulate any reality for its user, who will think the experience is genuine (Nozick 1974). Would you plug in to such a machine for life? Most people would not, and the case is widely taken to vitiate mental state theories of well-being. Beyond having positive mental states, it seems to matter both that our lives go well and that our state of mind is appropriately related to how things are. [ 25 ]

A second set of objections concerns various ways in which a happy person might nonetheless seem intuitively to be leading an impoverished or stunted life. The most influential of these worries involves adaptation , where individuals facing oppressive circumstances scale back their expectations and find contentment in “small mercies,” as Sen put it. [ 26 ] Even a slave might come to internalize the values of his oppressors and be happy, and this strikes most as an unenviable life indeed. Related worries involve people with diminished capacities (blindness, Down Syndrome), or choosing to lead narrow and cramped or simpleminded lives (e.g., counting blades of grass). Worries about impoverished lives are a prime motivator of Aristotelian theories of well-being, which emphasize the full and proper exercise of our human capacities.

In the face of these and other objections most commentators have concluded that neither happiness nor any other mental state can suffice for well-being. Philosophical interest in happiness has consequently flagged, since its theoretical importance becomes unclear if it does not play a starring role in our account of the good.

Even as happiness might fail to suffice for well-being, well-being itself may be only one component of a good life , and not the most important one at that. Here ‘good life’ means a life that is good all things considered, taking account of all the values that matter in life, whether they benefit the individual or not. Kant, for example, considered both morality and well-being to be important but distinct elements of a good life. Yet morality should be our first priority, never to be sacrificed for personal happiness.

In fact there is a broad consensus, or near-consensus, among ethical theorists on a doctrine we might call the priority of virtue : broadly and crudely speaking, the demands of virtue or morality trump other values in life. [ 27 ] We ought above all to act and live well, or at least not badly or wrongly. This view need not take the strong form of insisting that we must always act as virtuously as possible, or that moral reasons always take precedence. But it does mean, at least, that when being happy requires acting badly, one’s happiness must be sacrificed. If it would be wrong to leave your family, in which you are unhappy, then you must remain unhappy, or find more acceptable ways to seek happiness.

The mainstream views in all three of the major approaches to ethical theory—consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics—agree on some form of the priority of virtue. Where these views chiefly differ is not on the importance of being good, but on whether being good necessarily benefits us. Virtue ethicists tend to answer in the affirmative, the other two schools in the negative. Building virtue into well-being, as Aristotelians do, may seem to yield a more demanding ethics, and in some ways it does. Yet many deontologists and consequentialists—notably Kant—advocate sterner, more starkly moralistic visions of the good life than Aristotle would ever have dreamt of (e.g., Singer 1972).

Happiness, in short, is believed by most philosophers to be insufficient for well-being, and still less important for the good life. These points may seem to vitiate any substantial role for happiness in ethical thought. However, well-being itself is still regarded as a central concept in ethical thought, denoting one of the chief elements of a good life even if not the sole element. And there are reasons for thinking happiness important, both practically and theoretically, despite the worries noted above.

Even if happiness does not suffice for well-being—a point that not all philosophers would accept—it might still rate a privileged spot in theories of well-being. This could happen in either of two ways.

First, happiness could be a major component of a theory of well-being. Objective list theories of well-being sometimes include happiness or related mental states such as enjoyment among the fundamental constituents of well-being. A more ambitious proposal, originated by L.W. Sumner, identifies well-being with authentic happiness —happiness that is authentic in the sense of being both informed and autonomous (Sumner 1996). The root idea is that well-being involves being happy, where one’s happiness is a response of one’s own (autonomous), to a life that genuinely is one’s own (informed). The authenticity constraint is meant to address both experience machine-type worries and “happy slave” objections relating to adaptation, where happiness may be non-autonomous, depending on manipulation or the uncritical acceptance of oppressive values. Since these have been the most influential objections to mental state accounts of well-being, Sumner’s approach promises to considerably strengthen the position of happiness-centered approaches to well-being, and several philosophers have developed variants or close relations of the authentic happiness theory (Brülde 2007, Haybron 2008a, Tiberius and Plakias 2010, Višak 2015). The approach remains fairly new, however, so its long-term prospects remain unclear. [ 28 ]

A second strategy forsakes the project of giving a unitary theory of well-being, recognizing instead a family of two or more kinds of prudential value. Happiness could be central to, or even exhaustive of, one of those values. Shelly Kagan, for instance, has suggested that welfare hedonism could be correct as a theory of how well a person is doing, but not of how well a person’s life is going, which should perhaps be regarded as a distinct value (Kagan 1992, 1994). In short, we might distinguish narrow and wide well-being concepts. An experience machine user might be doing well in the narrow sense, but not the wide—she is doing well, though her life is quite sad. Happiness might, then, suffice for well-being, but only in the narrow sense. Others have made similar points, but uptake has been limited, perhaps because distinguishing multiple concepts of prudential value makes the already difficult job of giving a theory of well-being much harder, as Kagan pointedly observes. [ 29 ] An interesting possibility is that the locution ‘happy life’, and the corresponding well-being sense of happiness, actually refers to a specific variety of well-being—perhaps well-being in the wide sense just suggested, or well-being taken as an ideal state, an ultimate goal of deliberation. This might explain the continued use of ‘happiness’ for the well-being notion in the philosophical literature, rather than the more standard ‘wellbeing.’

The preceding section discussed ways that happiness might figure prominently even in non-mental state theories of well-being. The question there concerned the role of happiness in theories of well-being. This is a different question from how important happiness is for well-being itself. Even a theory of well-being that includes no mention at all of happiness can allow that happiness is nonetheless a major component or contributor to well-being, because of its relation to the things that ultimately constitute well-being. If you hold a desire theory of well-being, for instance, you will very likely allow that, for most people, happiness is a central aspect of well-being, since most people very much desire to be happy. Indeed, some desire theorists have argued that the account actually yields a form of hedonism, on the grounds that people ultimately desire nothing else but happiness or pleasure (Sidgwick 1907 [1966], Brandt 1979, 1989).

Happiness may be thought important even on theories normally believed to take a dismissive view of it. Aristotelians identify well-being with virtuous activity, yet Aristotle plainly takes this to be a highly pleasant condition, indeed the most pleasant kind of life there is (see, e.g., NE , Bk. I 8; Bk. VII 13). You cannot flourish, on Aristotelian terms, without being happy, and unhappiness is clearly incompatible with well-being. Even the Stoics, who notoriously regard all but a virtuous inner state as at best indifferent, would still assign happiness a kind of importance: at the very least, to be unhappy would be unvirtuous; and virtue itself arguably entails a kind of happiness, namely a pleasant state of tranquility. As well, happiness would likely be a preferred indifferent in most cases, to be chosen over unhappiness. To be sure, both Aristotelian and Stoic accounts are clear that happiness alone does not suffice for well-being, that its significance is not what common opinion takes it to be, and that some kinds of happiness can be worthless or even bad. But neither denies that happiness is somehow quite important for human well-being.

In fact it is questionable whether any major school of philosophical thought denies outright the importance of happiness, at least on one of the plausible accounts of the matter. Doubts about its significance probably owe to several factors. Some skeptics, for example, focus on relatively weak conceptions of happiness, such as the idea that it is little more than the simple emotion of feeling happy—an idea that few hedonists or emotional state theorists would accept. Or, alternatively, assuming that a concern for happiness has only to do with positive states. Yet ‘happiness’ also serves as a blanket term for a domain of concern that involves both positive and negative states, namely the kinds of mental states involved in being happy or unhappy. Just as “health” care tends to focus mainly on ill health, so might happiness researchers choose to focus much of their effort on the study and alleviation of unhappiness—depression, suffering, anxiety, and other conditions whose importance is uncontroversial. The study of happiness need be no more concerned with smiles than with frowns.

5. The pursuit and promotion of happiness

The last set of questions we will examine centers on the pursuit of happiness, both individual and collective. Most of the popular literature on happiness discusses how to make oneself happier, with little attention given to whether this is an appropriate goal, or how various means of pursuing happiness measure up from an ethical standpoint. More broadly, how if at all should one pursue happiness as part of a good life?

We saw earlier that most philosophers regard happiness as secondary to morality in a good life. The individual pursuit of happiness may be subject to nonmoral norms as well, prudence being the most obvious among them. Prudential norms need not be as plain as “don’t shoot yourself in the foot.” On Sumner’s authentic happiness view of well-being, for instance, we stand to gain little by pursuing happiness in inauthentic ways, for instance through self-deception or powerful drugs like Huxley’s soma , which guarantees happiness come what may (Huxley 1932 [2005]). The view raises interesting questions about the benefits of less extreme pharmaceuticals, such as the therapeutic use of antidepressants; such medications can make life more pleasant, but many people worry whether they pose a threat to authenticity, perhaps undercutting their benefits. It is possible that such drugs involve prudential tradeoffs, promoting well-being in some ways while undermining it in others; whether the tradeoffs are worth it will depend on how, in a given case, the balance is struck. Another possibility is that such drugs sometimes promote authenticity, if for instance a depressive disorder prevents a person from being “himself.”

Looking to more broadly ethical, but not yet moral, norms, it may be possible to act badly without acting either immorally or imprudently. While Aristotle himself regarded acting badly as inherently imprudent, his catalogue of virtues is instructive, as many of them (wit, friendliness, etc.) are not what we normally regard as moral virtues. Some morally permissible methods of pursuing happiness may nonetheless be inappropriate because they conflict with such “ethical” virtues. They might, for instance, be undignified or imbecilic.

Outwardly virtuous conduct undertaken in the name of personal happiness might, if wrongly motivated, be incompatible with genuine virtue. One might, for instance, engage in philanthropy solely to make oneself happier, and indeed work hard at fine-tuning one’s assistance to maximize the hedonic payoff. This sort of conduct would not obviously instantiate the virtue of compassion or kindness, and indeed might be reasonably deemed contemptible. Similarly, it might be admirable, morally or otherwise, to be grateful for the good things in one’s life. Yet the virtue of gratitude might be undermined by certain kinds of gratitude intervention, whereby one tries to become happier by focusing on the things one is grateful for. If expressions of gratitude become phony or purely instrumental, the sole reason for giving thanks being to become happy—and not that one actually has something to be thankful for—then the “gratitude” might cease to be admirable, and may indeed be unvirtuous. [ 30 ]

A different question is what means of pursuing happiness are most effective . This is fundamentally an empirical question, but there are some in-principle issues that philosophical reflection might inform. One oft-heard claim, commonly called the “paradox of hedonism,” is that the pursuit of happiness is self-defeating; to be happy, don’t pursue happiness. It is not clear how to interpret this dictum, however, so that it is both interesting and true. It is plainly imprudent to make happiness one’s focus at every moment, but doubtful that this has often been denied. Yet never considering happiness also seems an improbable strategy for becoming happier. If you are choosing among several equally worthwhile occupations, and have good evidence that some of them will make you miserable, while one of them is likely to be highly fulfilling, it would not seem imprudent to take that information into account. Yet to do so just is to pursue happiness. The so-called paradox of hedonism is perhaps best seen as a vague caution against focusing too much on making oneself happy, not a blanket dismissal of the prospects for expressly seeking happiness—and for this modest point there is good empirical evidence (Schooler, Ariely et al . 2003, Lyubomirsky 2007).

That happiness is sometimes worth seeking does not mean we will always do a good job of it (Haybron 2008b). In recent decades a massive body of empirical evidence has gathered on various ways in which people seem systematically prone to make mistakes in the pursuit of their interests, including happiness. Such tendencies have been suggested in several domains relating to the pursuit of happiness, including (with recent surveys cited):

• Assessing how happy we are, or were in the past (Haybron 2007)
• Predicting (“forecasting”) what will make us happy (Gilbert 2006)
• Choosing rationally (Kahneman and Tversky 2000, Gilovitch, Griffin et al . 2002, Hsee and Hastie 2006)

A related body of literature explores the costs and benefits of (ostensibly) making it easier to pursue happiness by increasing people’s options; it turns out that having more choices might often make people less happy, for instance by increasing the burdens of deliberation or the likelihood of regret (Schwartz 2004). Less discussed in this context, but highly relevant, is the large body of research indicating that human psychology and behavior are remarkably prone to unconscious social and other situational influences, most infamously reported in the Milgram obedience experiments (Doris 2002, 2015, Haybron 2014). Human functioning, and the pursuit of happiness, may be more profoundly social than many commentators have assumed. [ 31 ]

Taken together, this research bears heavily on two central questions in the philosophical literature: first, the broad character of human nature (e.g., in what sense are we rational animals? How should we conceive of human autonomy?); second, the philosophical ideals of the good society and good government.

Just a decade ago the idea of happiness policy was something of a novelty. While it remains on the fringes in some locales, notably the United States, in much of the world there has been a surge of interest in making happiness an explicit target of policy consideration. Attention has largely shifted, however, to a broader focus on well-being to reflect not just happiness but also other welfare concerns of citizens, and dozens of governments now incorporate well-being metrics in their national statistics. [ 32 ]

Let’s consider the rationale for policies aimed at promoting well-being. In political thought, the modern liberal tradition has tended to assume an optimistic view of human nature and the individual’s capacities for prudent choice. Partly for this reason, the preservation and expansion of individual freedoms, including people’s options, is widely taken to be a central goal, if not the goal, of legitimate governments. People should be freed to seek the good life as they see it, and beyond that the state should, by and large, stay out of the well-being-promotion business.

This vision of the good society rests on empirical assumptions that have been the subject of considerable debate. If it turns out that people systematically and predictably err in the pursuit of their interests, then it may be possible for governments to devise policies that correct for such mistakes. [ 33 ] Of course, government intervention can introduce other sorts of mistakes, and there is some debate about whether such measures are likely to do more harm than good (e.g., Glaeser 2006).

But even if governments cannot effectively counteract human imprudence, it may still be that people fare better in social forms that influence or even constrain choices in ways that make serious mistakes less likely. (Food culture and its impact on health may be an instructive example here.) The idea that people tend to fare best when their lives are substantially constrained or guided by their social and physical context has recently been dubbed contextualism ; the contrary view, that people do best when their lives are, as much as possible, determined by the individuals themselves, is individualism (Haybron 2008b). Recent contextualists include communitarians and many perfectionists, though contextualism is not a political doctrine and is compatible with liberalism and even libertarian political morality. Contextualism about the promotion of well-being is related to recent work in moral psychology that emphasizes the social character of human agency, such as situationism and social intuitionism. [ 34 ]

Quite apart from matters of efficacy, there are moral questions about the state promotion of happiness, which has been a major subject of debate, both because of the literature on mistakes and research suggesting that the traditional focus of state efforts to promote well-being, economic growth, has a surprisingly modest impact on happiness. One concern is paternalism : does happiness-based policy infringe too much on personal liberty? Some fear a politics that may too closely approximate Huxley’s Brave New World, where the state ensures a drug-induced happiness for all (Huxley 1932 [2005]). Extant policy suggestions, however, have been more modest. Efforts to steer choice, for instance in favor of retirement savings, may be paternalistic, but advocates argue that such policies can be sufficiently light-handed that no one should object to them, in some cases even going so far as to deem it “libertarian paternalism” (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). [ 35 ] The idea is that gentle “nudges,” like setting default options on hiring forms to setting aside money for retirement, interfere only trivially with choice, imposing little or no cost for those who wish to choose differently, and would very likely be welcomed by most of those targeted.

Also relatively light-handed, and perhaps not paternalistic at all, are state efforts to promote happiness directly through social policy, for instance by prioritizing unemployment over economic growth on the grounds that the former has a larger impact on happiness. Other policies might include trying to reduce commute times, or making walkable neighborhoods and green space a priority in urban planning, again on happiness grounds. Some may deem such measures paternalistic insofar as they trade freedom (in the form of economic prosperity) for a substantive good, happiness, that people value unevenly, though it has also been argued that refusing to take citizens’ values like happiness into consideration in policy deliberation on their behalf can amount to paternalism (Haybron and Alexandrova 2013).

A related sort of objection to happiness-based policy argues that happiness, or even well-being, is simply the wrong object of policy, which ought instead to focus on the promotion of resources or capabilities (Rawls 1971, Nussbaum 2000, Quong 2011, Sen 2009). Several reasons have been cited for this sort of view, one being that policies aimed at promoting happiness or well-being violate commonly accepted requirements of “liberal neutrality,” according to which policy must be neutral among conceptions of the good. According to this constraint, governments must not promote any view of the good life, and happiness-based policy might be argued to flout it. Worries about paternalism also surface here, the idea being that states should only focus on affording people the option to be happy or whatever, leaving the actual achievement of well-being up to the autonomous individual. As we just saw, however, it is not clear how far happiness policy initiatives actually infringe on personal liberty or autonomy. A further worry is that, happiness isn’t really, or primarily, what matters for human well-being (Nussbaum 2008).

But a major motivation for thinking happiness the wrong object of policy is that neither happiness nor well-being are the appropriate focus of a theory of justice . What justice requires of society, on this view, is not that it make us happy; we do not have a right to be happy. Rather, justice demands only that each has sufficient opportunity (in the form of resources or capabilities, say) to achieve a good life, or that each gets a fair share of the benefits of social cooperation. However plausible such points may be, it is not clear how far they apply to many proposals for happiness-based policy, save the strongest claims that happiness should be the sole aim of policy: many policy decisions are not primarily concerned with questions of social justice, nor with constitutional fundamentals, the focus of some theories of justice. Happiness could be a poor candidate for the “currency” of justice, yet still remain a major policy concern. Indeed, the chief target of happiness policy advocates has been, not theories of justice, but governments’ overwhelming emphasis on promoting GDP and other indices of economic growth. This is not, in the main, a debate about justice, and as of yet the philosophical literature has not extensively engaged with it.

However, the push for happiness-based policy is a recent development. In coming years, such questions will likely receive considerably more attention in the philosophical literature.

• Adler, Matthew D., 2019, Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Adler, M. D., and M. Fleurbaey (eds.), 2015, The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ahuvia, A., et al., 2015, “Happiness: An Interactionist Perspective,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 5(1): 1–18.
• Alexandrova, A., 2005, “Subjective Well-Being and Kahneman’s ‘Objective Happiness’,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 6: 301–324.
• –––, 2008, “First-Person Reports and the Measurement of Happiness,” Philosophical Psychology , 21(5): 571–583.
• –––, 2017, A Philosophy for the Science of Well-Being , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Alexandrova, A. and D. M. Haybron, 2012, “High Fidelity Economics,” in The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology , W. Hands and J. Davis (eds.). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
• –––, 2016, “Is Construct Validation Valid?,” Philosophy of Science , 83(5): 1098–1109.
• Almeder, R., 2000, Human Happiness and Morality , Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press.
• Andreou, C., 2010, “A Shallow Route to Environmentally Friendly Happiness: Why Evidence That We Are Shallow Materialists Need Not Be Bad News for the Environment(Alist),” Ethics, Place & Environment , 13(1): 1–10.
• Ang, J. M. S., 2019, “Can Existentialists Be Happy? Authentic Life, Authentic Happiness,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 122–129.
• Angier, T., 2015, “Happiness: Overcoming the Skill Model,” International Philosophical Quarterly , 55(1): 5–23.
• Angner, E., 2009, “The Politics of Happiness,” Philosophy and Happiness , L. Bortolotti (ed.), New York: Palgrave, 1–26.
• –––, 2010, “Are subjective measures of well-being ‘direct’?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 89(1): 115–130.
• –––, 2011, “The Evolution of Eupathics: The Historical Roots of Subjective Measures of Well-Being,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1): 4–41.
• –––, 2013a, “Is it possible to measure happiness?,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 3(2): 221–240.
• –––, 2013b, “Is Empirical Research Relevant to Philosophical Conclusions?,” Res Philosophica , 90(3): 365–85.
• –––, 2016, A Course in Behavioral Economics , second edition, London: Palgrave.
• Annas, J., 1993, The Morality of Happiness , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2011, Intelligent Virtue , New York: Oxford.
• Argyle, M., 1999, “Causes and Correlates of Happiness,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 3–25.
• –––, 2002, The Psychology of Happiness , New York: Routledge.
• Austin, A., 2015, “On Well-Being and Public Policy: Are We Capable of Questioning the Hegemony of Happiness?,” Social Indicators Research , 127(1): 1–16.
• Badhwar, N., 2008, “Is Realism Really Bad for You? A Realistic Response,” The Journal of Philosophy , 105(2): 85–107.
• –––, 2014, Well-Being: Happiness in a Worthwhile Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Happiness,” in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being , ed. G. Fletcher, New York: Routledge, 323–35.
• Bagaric, M., and J. McConvill, 2005, “Goodbye Justice, Hello Happiness: Welcoming Positive Psychology to the Law,” Deakin Law Review , 10(1): 1–26.
• Barrow, R., 1980, Happiness and Schooling , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• –––, 1991, Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement , Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
• Beck, B., and B. Stroop, 2015, “A Biomedical Shortcut to (Fraudulent) Happiness? An Analysis of the Notions of Well-Being and Authenticity Underlying Objections to Mood Enhancement,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Berlin: Springer, 115–34.
• Becker, L. C., 2012, Habilitation, Health, and Agency , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Belliotti, R. A., 2004, Happiness Is Overrated , New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2013, “The Seductions of Happiness,” The Oxford Handbook of Happiness , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Benditt, T. M., 1974, “Happiness,” Philosophical Studies , 25: 1–20.
• –––, 1978, “Happiness and Satisfaction – A Rejoinder to Carson,” The Personalist , 59: 108–9.
• Besser, L. L., 2014, Eudaimonic Ethics , New York: Routledge.
• Besser-Jones, L., 2013, “The Pursuit and Nature of Happiness,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 103–21.
• Billon, A., 2016, “Irrationality and Happiness: A (Neo-) Shopenhauerian Argument for Rational Pessimism,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy , 11(1): 1–27.
• Bishop, M., 2012, “The Network Theory of Well-Being: An Introduction,” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication , 7: 1–29.
• –––, 2015, The Good Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Biswas-Diener, R., 2018, “The Subjective Well-Being of Small Societies,” Handbook of Well-Being , E. Diener, S. Oishi, and L. Tay (eds.), Salt Lake City: DEF Publishers.
• Biswas-Diener, R., J. Vittersø and E. Diener, 2005, “Most People are Pretty Happy, but There is Cultural Variation: The Inughuit, The Amish, and The Maasai,” The Journal of Happiness Studies , 6(3): 205–226.
• Blackson, T., 2009, “On Feldman’s Theory of Happiness,” Utilitas , 21(3): 393–400.
• Block, N., 1995, “On a Confusion About A Function of Consciousness,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 18: 227–247.
• Bloomfield, P., 2014, The Virtues of Happiness , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bognar, G., 2010, “Authentic Happiness,” Utilitas , 22(3): 272–284.
• Bok, D., 2010a, The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Bok, S., 2010b, Exploring Happiness: From Aristotle to Brain Science , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Bortolotti, L. (ed.), 2009, Philosophy and Happiness , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bosch, M. van den, and W. Bird, 2018, Oxford Textbook of Nature and Public Health: The Role of Nature in Improving the Health of a Population , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bramble, B., 2016, “The Experience Machine,” Philosophy Compass , 11(3): 136–45.
• Brandt, R. B., 1959, Ethical Theory , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• –––, 1979, A Theory of the Good and the Right , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 1989, “Fairness to Happiness,” Social Theory & Practice , 15: 33–58.
• –––, 1992, Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Brülde, B., 2007, “Happiness theories of the good life,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8(1): 15–49.
• –––, 2015, “Well-Being, Happiness and Sustainability,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , Happiness Studies Book Series, J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Berlin: Springer, 157–76.
• Brannmark, J., 2003, “Leading lives: On happiness and narrative meaning,” Philosophical Papers , 32(3): 321–343.
• Bruni, L., F. Comim, and M. Pugno (eds.), 2008, Capabilities and Happiness , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Buss, S., 2004, “The Irrationality of Unhappiness and the Paradox of Despair,” Journal of Philosophy , CI(4): 171–200.
• Cahn, S. M. and C. Vitrano (eds.), 2008, Happiness: Classical and Contemporary Readings in Philosophy , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2015, Happiness and Goodness: Philosophical Reflections on Living Well , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Campbell, R., 1973, “The Pursuit Of Happiness,” Personalist , 54: 325–337.
• Capaldi, C. A. et al., 2015, “Flourishing in Nature: A Review of the Benefits of Connecting with Nature and Its Application as a Wellbeing Intervention,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 5(4): 1–16.
• Capuccino, C., 2013, “Happiness and Aristotle’s Definition of Eudaimonia,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 1–26.
• Carson, T. L., 1978a, “Happiness and Contentment: A Reply to Benditt,” The Personalist , 59: 101–7.
• –––, 1978b, “Happiness and the Good Life,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy , 9: 73–88.
• –––, 1979, “Happiness and the Good Life: a Rejoinder to Mele,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy , 10: 189–192.
• –––, 1981, “Happiness, Contentment, and the Good Life,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 62: 378–92.
• Cashen, M, 2012, “Happiness, Eudaimonia, and The Principle of Descriptive Adequacy,” Metaphilosophy , 43(5): 619–35.
• Cavallaro, M., and G. Heffernan, 2019, “From Happiness to Blessedness: Husserl on Eudaimonia, Virtue, and the Best Life,” HORIZON. Studies in Phenomenology , 8(2): 353–388.
• Chappell, T., 2013, “Eudaimonia, Happiness, and the Redemption of Unhappiness,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 27–52.
• Charry, E. T., 2010, God and the Art of Happiness , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Chekola, M., 2007, “Happiness, Rationality, Autonomy and the Good Life,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8(1): 51–78.
• Christakis, N., J. Fowler, Simon, i. Schuster, P. D. Audio and L. Findaway World, 2009, Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives , New York: Little, Brown and Co.
• Clark, A., et al., 2018, The Origins of Happiness: The Science of Well-Being over the Life Course , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cohen Kaminitz, S., forthcoming, “Looking Good or Feeling Well? Understanding the Combinations of Well-Being Indicators Using Insights from the Philosophy of Well-Being,” Social Indicators Research , online first 12 February 2020. doi:10.1007/s11205-020-02289-9
• David, S., Boniwell, I., and A. Ayers (eds.), 2013, The Oxford Handbook of Happiness , New York: Oxford.
• Davis, W., 1981a, “Pleasure and Happiness,” Philosophical Studies , 39: 305–318.
• –––, 1981b, “A Theory of Happiness,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 18: 111–20.
• de Boer, J., 2014, “Scaling Happiness,” Philosophical Psychology , 27(5): 703–18.
• De Brigard, F., 2010, “If You like It, Does It Matter If It’s Real?,” Philosophical Psychology , 23(1): 43–57.
• de Lazari-Radek, K., and Singer, P., 2014, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Den Uyl, D. and T. R. Machan, 1983, “Recent Work on the Concept of Happiness,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 20: 115–34.
• Diener, E., 2008, “Myths in the Science of Happiness, and Directions for Future Research,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press: 493–514.
• Diener, E. and R. Biswas-Diener, 2008, Happiness: unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Diener, E. and C. Diener, 1996, “Most People Are Happy,” Psychological Science , 7(3): 181–185.
• Diener, E., R. E. Lucas, U. Schimmack and J. F. Helliwell, 2009, Well-Being for Public Policy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Diener, E., R. E. Lucas and C. N. Scollon, 2006, “Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill: Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being,” American Psychologist , 61(4): 305–314.
• Diener, E., W. Ng, J. Harter and R. Arora, 2010, “Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 99(1): 52–61.
• Diener, E. and M. Seligman, 2004, “Beyond Money: Toward an economy of well-being,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 5(1): 1–31.
• Diener, E. and E. M. Suh (eds.), 2000, Culture and Subjective Well-Being , Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
• Diener, E., E. M. Suh, R. E. Lucas and H. L. Smith, 1999, “Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress,” Psychological Bulletin , 125(2): 276–302.
• Dolan, P., and L. Kudrna, 2016, “Sentimental Hedonism: Pleasure, Purpose, and Public Policy,” Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being , J. Vittersø (ed.), Berlin: Springer, 437–52.
• Dolan, P. and M. P. White, 2007, “How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform public policy?” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2(1): 71–85.
• Doris, J. M., 2002, Lack of Character , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Skepticism about persons,” Philosophical Issues , 19(1): 57–91.
• –––, 2015, Talking to Our Selves , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Easterlin, R. A., 1974, “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?” Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz , P. A. David and M. W. Reder (eds.), New York: Academic Press.
• –––, 2003, “Explaining Happiness,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 100(19): 11176–11183.
• –––, 2005, “Building a Better Theory of Well-Being,” Economics and Happiness , L. Bruni and P. L. Porta (eds.), New York: Oxford, 29–65.
• Ebenstein, A. O., 1991, The Greatest Happiness Principle: An Examination of Utilitarianism , New York: Garland.
• Edgeworth, F. Y., 1881, Mathematical Psychics: an Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences , London: Kegan Paul.
• Eid, M. and R. J. Larsen (eds.), 2008, The Science of Subjective Well-Being , New York: Guilford.
• Elster, J., 1983, Sour Grapes , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Epictetus, The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, The Manual, and Fragments , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.
• Euler, S. S., 2019, “Psychological Universals in the Study of Happiness: From Social Psychology to Epicurean Philosophy,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 130–37.
• Everett, D. L., 2009, Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle , New York: Random House.
• Feldman, F., 2004, Pleasure and the Good Life , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2010, What Is This Thing Called Happiness? , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2019, “An Improved Whole Life Satisfaction Theory of Happiness?,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 9(2):1–7.
• Flanagan, O., 2007, The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Flanagan, O., M. Letourneau, and W. Zhao, 2019, “Particulars of Well-Being,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 1–5.
• Fletcher, G., 2013, “A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being,” Utilitas , 25(2): 206–20.
• Fleurbaey, M., and D. Blanchet, 2013, Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fogel, R. W., 2005, “Changes in the disparities in chronic diseases during the course of the 20th century,” Perspectives in biology and medicine , 48(1 Supplement): S150-S165.
• Fraser, C., 2013, “Happiness in Classical Confucianism: Xúnzǐ,” E. Minar (ed.), Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 53–79.
• Frederick, S. and G. Loewenstein, 1999, “Hedonic Adaptation,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press: 302–29.
• Fredrickson, B. L., 2004, “The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 359(1449): 1367–1377
• Fredrickson, B. L. and D. Kahneman, 1993, “Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65(1): 45–55.
• Fredrickson, B. L. and M. F. Losada, 2005, “Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing,” American Psychologist , 60(7): 678–686.
• Frey, B. S., 2008, Happiness: A Revolution in Economics , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Frumkin, H., 2001, “Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 20(3): 234–240.
• Gilbert, D., 2006, Stumbling on Happiness , New York: Knopf.
• Gilovitch, T., D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (eds.), 2002, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Glaeser, E. L., 2006, “Paternalism and Psychology,” University of Chicago Law Review , 73(1): 133–156.
• Goldman, A. H., 2016, “Happiness is an Emotion,” The Journal of Ethics , 21(1): 1–16.
• –––, 2019, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Goldstein, I., 1973, “Happiness: The Role of Non-Hedonic Criteria in Its Evaluation,” International Philosophical Quarterly , 13: 523–34.
• –––, 1981, “Cognitive Pleasure and Distress,” Philosophical Studies , 39: 15–23.
• –––, 1989, “Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional, Intrinsic Values,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50(2): 255–276.
• Goldstein, I., 2002, “Are emotions feelings? A further look at hedonic theories of emotions,” Consciousness and Emotion , 3(1): 21–33.
• Graham, C., 2009, Happiness around the world: The paradox of happy peasants and miserable millionaires , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Graham, M., 2017, “A Fate Worse Than Death? The Well-Being of Patients Diagnosed as Vegetative With Covert Awareness,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 20(5): 1–16.
• Griffin, J., 1979, “Is Unhappiness Morally More Important Than Happiness?” Philosophical Quarterly , 29: 47–55.
• –––, 1986, Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2000, “Replies,” Well-Being and Morality , R. Crisp and B. Hooker (eds.), New York: Oxford: 281–313.
• –––, 2007, “What Do Happiness Studies Study?” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8(1): 139–148.
• Griswold, C., 1996, “Happiness, Tranquillity, and Philosophy,” Critical Review , 10(1): 1–32.
• Haidt, J., 2001, “The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment,” Psychological Review , 108(4): 814–834.
• Hare, R. M., 1963, Freedom and Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hausman, D. M., 2010, “Hedonism and Welfare Economics,” Economics and Philosophy , 26(3): 321–44.
• –––, 2011, Preferences, Value, Choice, and Welfare , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hausman, D. M. and B. Welch, 2009, “Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 18(1): 123–136.
• Hawkins, J., 2008, “Well-Being, Autonomy, and the Horizon Problem,” Utilitas , 20(2): 1–27.
• –––, 2014a, “Well-Being, Time, and Dementia,” Ethics , 124(3): 507–542.
• –––, 2014b, “Well-Being: What Matters Beyond the Mental?,” in Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 4), M. Timmons (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, “The Experience Machine and the Experience Requirement,” The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Well-Being , G. Fletcher (ed.), New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2019, “Well-Being, The Self, and Radical Change,” Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol 9 , M. Timmons (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 251.
• Haybron, D. M., 2001, “Happiness and Pleasure,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 62(3): 501–528.
• –––, 2003, “What Do We Want from a Theory of Happiness?” Metaphilosophy , 34(3): 305–329.
• –––, 2005, “On Being Happy or Unhappy,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71(2): 287–317.
• –––, 2007, “Do We Know How Happy We Are?” Nous , 41(3): 394–428.
• –––, 2008a, “Happiness, the Self, and Human Flourishing,” Utilitas , 20(1): 21–49.
• –––, 2008b, The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being , New York, Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, “Central Park: Nature, Context, and Human Wellbeing,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(2): 235–254.
• –––, 2013a, Happiness: A Very Short Introduction , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013b, “The Proper Pursuit of Happiness,” Res Philosophica , 90(3): 387–411.
• –––, 2014, “Adventures in Assisted Living: Well-Being and Situationist Psychology,” The Philosophy and Psychology of Character and Happiness , N. E. Snow and F. V. Trivigno (eds.), New York: Routledge, 1–25.
• –––, 2016, “Mental State Approaches to Well-Being,” The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy , M. D. Adler & M. Fleurbaey (eds.), New York: Oxford, 347–378.
• Haybron, D. M., and A. Alexandrova, 2013, “Paternalism in Economics,” Paternalism: Theory and Practice , C. Coons and M. Weber (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 157–77.
• Haybron, D. M., and V. Tiberius, 2015, “Well-Being Policy: What Standard of Well-Being?,” Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1(4): 712–33.
• Headey, B., 2007, The Set-Point Theory of Well-Being Needs Replacing: On the Brink of a Scientific Revolution? , DIW Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research.
• –––, 2008, “The Set-Point Theory of Well-Being: Negative Results and Consequent Revisions,” Social Indicators Research , 85(3): 389–403.
• Hersch, G., 2015, “Can an Evidential Account Justify Relying on Preferences for Well-Being Policy?,” Journal of Economic Methodology , 22(3): 1–13.
• –––, 2017, “Ignoring Easterlin: Why Easterlin’s Correlation Findings Need Not Matter to Public Policy,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 19(8): 2225–2241.
• –––, 2020, “No Theory-Free Lunches in Well-Being Policy,” The Philosophical Quarterly , 70(278): 43–64.
• Hill, S., 2007, “Haybron on Mood Propensity and Happiness,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 10(2): 215–28.
• Hindriks, F., & Douven, I., 2018, “Nozick’s experience machine: An empirical study,” Philosophical Psychology , 31(2): 1–21.
• Ho, S. M., W. Duan, and S. C. Tang, 2014, “The Psychology of Virtue and Happiness in Western and Asian Thought,” The Philosophy and Psychology of Character and Happiness , N. E. Snow and F. V. Trivigno (eds.), New York: Routledge, 223–46.
• Houlden, V., et al., 2018, “The Relationship between Greenspace and the Mental Wellbeing of Adults: A Systematic Review,” PLOS ONE , 13(9): 1–35.
• Hsee, C. K. and R. Hastie, 2006, “Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10(1): 31–37.
• Hurka, T., 2010, The Best Things in Life: A Guide to What Really Matters , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Huxley, A., 1932 [2005], Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited , New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
• Inglehart, R., R. Foa, C. Peterson and C. Welzel, 2008, “Development, freedom, and rising happiness: A global perspective, 1981–2007” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 3(4): 264–285.
• Inglehart, R. and H.-D. Klingemann, 2000, “Genes, Culture, Democracy, and Happiness,” Culture and Subjective Well-Being , E. Diener and E. M. Suh (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 165–183.
• Intelisano, S., Krasko, J., & Luhmann, M., 2019, “Integrating Philosophical and Psychological Accounts of Happiness and Well-Being,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8: 1–40.
• Jebb, A. T., L. Tay, E. Diener, and S. Oishi, 2018, “Happiness, Income Satiation and Turning Points around the World,” Nature Human Behaviour , 2(1): 33–38.
• Joshanloo, M., 2013, “A Comparison of Western and Islamic Conceptions of Happiness,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 14(6): 1857–74.
• –––, 2014, “Eastern Conceptualizations of Happiness: Fundamental Differences with Western Views,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 15(2): 475–93.
• Joshanloo, M., and D. Weijers, 2019, “A Two-Dimensional Conceptual Framework for Understanding Mental Well-Being,” PLoS ONE , 14(3): e0214045.
• Kagan, S., 1992, “The Limits of Well-Being,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 9(2): 169–89.
• –––, 1994, “Me and My Life,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 94: 309–324.
• Kahane, Guy, 2011, “Reasons to Feel, Reasons to Take Pills,” Enhancing Human Capacities , J. Savulescu, R. Ter Meulen, and G. Kahane (eds.), Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 166–78.
• Kahneman, D., 1999, “Objective Happiness,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 3–25.
• Kahneman, D. and A. Deaton, 2010, “High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107(38): 16489–16493.
• Kahneman, D., E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), 1999, Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
• Kahneman, D., B. L. Fredrickson, C. A. Schreiber and D. A. Redelmeier, 1993, “When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End,” Psychological Science , 4(6): 401–405.
• Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (eds.), 2000, Choices, Values, and Frames , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kauppinen, A., 2013, “Meaning and Happiness,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 161–185.
• Kazez, J., 2007, The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Kekes, J., 1982, “Happiness,” Mind , 91: 358–76.
• –––, 1988, The Examined Life , Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
• –––, 1992, “Happiness,” Encyclopedia of Ethics , L. C. Becker and C. B. Becker (eds.), New York: Garland: 430–435.
• Kellert, S. R. and E. O. Wilson (eds.), 1995, The Biophilia Hypothesis , Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
• Kelman, M., 2005, “Hedonic Psychology and the Ambiguities of ‘Welfare’,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33(4): 391–412.
• Kenny, A. and C. Kenny, 2006, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Utility , Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic.
• Keyes, C. L., 2002, “The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 43(2): 207–222.
• Kim, R., 2020, Confucianism and the Philosophy of Well-Being , New York: Routledge.
• Klausen, S. H., 2015, “Happiness, Dispositions and the Self,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 17(3): 777–780.
• –––, 2019, “Understanding Older Adults’ Wellbeing from a Philosophical Perspective,” Journal of Happiness Studies , online first.
• Kraut, R., 1979, “Two Conceptions of Happiness,” The Philosophical Review , 138: 167–97.
• –––, 2018, The Quality of Life: Aristotle Revised , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kristjánsson, K., 2010, “Positive psychology, happiness, and virtue: The troublesome conceptual issues,” Review of general psychology , 14(4): 296.
• –––, 2012, “Positive Psychology and Positive Education: Old Wine in New Bottles?” Educational Psychologist , 47(2): 86–105.
• –––, 2018, “The flourishing–happiness concordance thesis: Some troubling counterexamples,” The Journal of Positive Psychology , 13(6): 541–552.
• Krueger, A., D. Kahneman, C. Fischler, D. Schkade, N. Schwarz and A. Stone, 2009, “Time Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and the U.S,” Social Indicators Research ,(93): 7–18.
• Larsen, R. J. and Z. Prizmic, 2008, “Regulation of Emotional Well-Being: Overcoming the Hedonic Treadmill,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press: 258–289.
• Lauinger, W., 2015, “A Framework for Understanding Parental Well-Being,” Philosophia , 43(3): 847–868.
• Layard, R., 2005, Happiness: Lessons from a new science , New York: Penguin.
• LeBar, M., and D. Russell, 2013, “Well-Being and Eudaimonia: A Reply to Haybron,” Aristotelian Ethics in Contemporary Perspective , 21: 52.
• Lin, E., 2015, “How to Use the Experience Machine,” Utilitas , 28(3): 314–32.
• Loewenstein, G. and E. Haisley, 2008, “The Economist as Therapist: Methodological Ramifications of ‘Light’ Paternalism,” The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics , A. Caplin and A. Schotter (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 210–248.
• Lucas, R. E., 2008, “Personality and Subjective Well-Being,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press: 171–194.
• Lucas, R. E., A. E. Clark, Y. Georgellis and E. Diener, 2004a, “Re-Examining Adaptation and the Setpoint Model of Happiness: Reactions to Changes in Marital Status,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84: 527–539.
• –––, 2004b, “Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction,” Psychological Science , 15(1): 8–13.
• Luhmann, M., and S. Intelisano, 2018, “Hedonic Adaptation and the Set Point for Subjective Well-Being,” Handbook of Well-Being , E. Diener, S. Oishi, and L. Tay (eds.), Salt Lake City: DEF Publishers.
• Lumber, R., M. Richardson, and D. Sheffield, 2017, “Beyond Knowing Nature: Contact, Emotion, Compassion, Meaning, and Beauty Are Pathways to Nature Connection,” PLOS ONE , 12(5): e0177186.
• Luo, S., 2018, “Happiness and the Good Life: A Classical Confucian Perspective,” Dao , 71(2): 1–18.
• Lykken, D. and A. Tellegen, 1996, “Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon,” Psychological Science , 7(3): 186–9.
• Lyubomirsky, S., 2007, The How of Happiness , New York: Penguin.
• Lyubomirsky, S., L. King and E. Diener, 2005, “The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?” Psychological Bulletin , 131(6): 803–855.
• Lyubomirsky, S., K. M. Sheldon and D. Schkade, 2005, “Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change,” Review of General Psychology , 9(2): 111–131.
• MacLeod, A. K., 2015, “Well-Being: Objectivism, Subjectivism or Sobjectivism?,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 16 1073–1089.
• Martin, M. W., 2012, Happiness and the Good Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• May, T., 2015, A Significant Life Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mayerfeld, J., 1996, “The Moral Asymmetry of Happiness and Suffering,” Southern Journal of Philosophy , 34: 317–338.
• –––, 1999, Suffering and Moral Responsibility , New York: Oxford.
• McFall, L., 1989, Happiness , New York: Peter Lang.
• McMahon, D. M., 2005, Happiness: A History , New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
• McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Metz, T., 2014, “Gross National Happiness: A Philosophical Appraisal,” Ethics and Social Welfare , 8(3): 218–32.
• Meynell, H., 1969, “Human Flourishing,” Religious Studies , 5: 147–154.
• Millgram, E., 2000, “What’s the Use of Utility,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 29(2): 113–136.
• Mitchell, P., 2018, “Adaptive Preferences, Adapted Preferences,” Mind , 127(508): 1003–25.
• Moller, D., 2011, “Wealth, Disability, and Happiness,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 39(2): 177–206.
• Montague, R., 1967, “Happiness,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 67: 87–102.
• Morris, S., 2011, “In defense of the hedonistic account of happiness,” Philosophical Psychology , 24(2): 261 – 281.
• –––, 2015, Science and the End of Ethics , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mulligan, K., 2016, “Happiness, Luck and Satisfaction.,” ARGUMENTA , 1(2): 133–45.
• Mulnix, J. W., & Mulnix, M. J., 2015a, Happy Lives, Good Lives: A Philosophical Examination , Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
• ––– (eds.), 2015b, Theories of Happiness: An Anthology , Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
• Murphy, M. C., 2001, Natural Law and Practical Rationality , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Myers, D. G. and E. Diener, 1995, “Who Is Happy?” Psychological Science , 6(1): 10–19.
• Nettle, D., 2005, Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Noddings, N., 2003, Happiness and Education , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M. C., 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2008, “Who Is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” The Journal of Legal Studies , 37(s2): S81-S113.
• Oishi, S., Choi, H., Buttrick, N., et al., 2019, “The psychologically rich life questionnaire,” Journal of Research in Personality , 81: 257–270.
• Parducci, A., 1995, Happiness, Pleasure, and Judgement: The Contextual Theory and Its Applications , Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Parfit, D., 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Paul, L. A., 2016, Transformative Experience , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pavot, W., 2008, “The Assessment of Subjective Well-Being: Successes and Shortfalls,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press, 124–140.
• Phillips, J., L. Misenheimer and J. Knobe, 2011, “The Ordinary Concept of Happiness (and Others Like It),” Emotion Review , 71: 929–937.
• Phillips, J., S. Nyholm, and S. Liao, 2014, “The Good in Happiness,” Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy (Volume 1), T. Lombrozo, S. Nichols, and J. Knobe (eds.), 253–93.
• Phillips, J., De Freitas, J., Mott, C., Gruber, J., & Knobe, J., 2017, “True happiness: The role of morality in the folk concept of happiness,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 146(2): 165–181.
• Posner, E. and C. R. Sunstein (eds.), 2010, Law and Happiness , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Purcell, S., 2013, “Natural Goodness and the Normativity Challenge: Happiness Across Cultures,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association , 87: 183–94.
• Quong, J., 2011, Liberalism Without Perfection , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Raibley, J., 2010, “Well-being and the priority of values,” Social Theory and Practice , 36(4): 593–620.
• –––, 2011, “Happiness is not Well-Being,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 13(6): 1105–1121.
• –––, 2012, “Health and Well-Being,” Philosophical Studies , 165(2): 469–89.
• –––, 2013, “Values, Agency, and Welfare,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 187–214.
• Rawls, J., 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Raz, J., 1986, The Morality of Freedom , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2004, “The Role of Well-Being,” Philosophical Perspectives , 18(1): 269–294.
• Rescher, N., 1972, Welfare: The Social Issues In Philosophical Perspective , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• –––, 1980, Unpopular Essays on Technological Progress , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Ricard, M., 2006, Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill , New York: Little, Brown and Co.
• Roberts, R. C., 2019, “Joys: A Brief Moral and Christian Geography,” Faith and Philosophy , 36(2): 195–222.
• Rodogno, R., 2014, “Happiness and Well-Being: Shifting the Focus of the Current Debate,” South African Journal of Philosophy , 33(4): 433–46.
• –––, 2015, “Prudential Value or Well-Being,” Handbook of Value , T. Brosch and D. Sander (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 287–312.
• Rodogno, R., Krause-Jensen, K., & Ashcroft, R. E., 2016, “‘Autism and the good life’: a new approach to the study of well-being,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 42(6): 401–408.
• Ross, L. and R. E. Nisbett, 1991, The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Rossi, M., 2018, “Happiness, Pleasures, and Emotions,” Philosophical Psychology , 31(6): 898–919.
• Rossi, M., & Tappolet, C., 2016, “Virtue, Happiness, and Well-Being,” The Monist , 99(2): 112–127.
• Russell, D., 2013, Happiness for Humans , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci, 2001, “On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being,” Annual Review of Psychology , 52: 141–166.
• Ryff, C. D., 1989, “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57(6): 1069–1081.
• Samson, C., 2019, “Indigenous and Western Views of Happiness: An Essay on the Politics of Contentment,” Regimes of Happiness: Comparative and Historical Studies , B. Turner, J. T. Jen, and Y. Contreras-Vejar (eds.), London: Anthem Press, 219–34.
• Savulescu, J., R. Ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 2011, Enhancing Human Capacities , Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
• Scanlon, T., 1999, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schooler, J. W., D. Ariely and G. Loewenstein, 2003, “The Pursuit and Assessment of Happiness Can Be Self-Defeating,” The Psychology of Economic Decision , I. Brocas and J. Carillo (eds.), New York: Oxford University.
• Schultz, B., 2017, The Happiness Philosophers , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schwartz, B., 2004, The Paradox of Choice , New York: HarperCollins.
• Schwarz, N. and F. Strack, 1999, “Reports of Subjective Well-Being: Judgmental Processes and Their Methodological Implications,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press: 61–84.
• Schwitzgebel, E., 2008, “The Unreliability of Naive Introspection,” Philosophical Review , 117(2): 245–273.
• –––, 2011, Perplexities of Consciousness , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Schwitzgebel, E. and R. T. Hurlburt, 2007, Describing Inner Experience? Proponent Meets Skeptic , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Scruton, R., 1975, Reason and Happiness. Nature and Conduct , R. S. Peters (ed.), New York: Macmillan: 139–61.
• Seligman, M., 2002, Authentic Happiness , New York: Free Press.
• –––, 2011, Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Sen, A., 1987a, Commodities and Capabilities , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1987b, On Ethics and Economics , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• –––, 2009, The Idea of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sidgwick, H., 1907 [1966], The Methods of Ethics , New York: Dover Publications.
• Silventoinen, K., S. Sammalisto, M. Perola, D. I. Boomsma, B. K. Cornes, C. Davis, L. Dunkel, M. De Lange, J. R. Harris and J. V. B. Hjelmborg, 2003, “Heritability of adult body height: a comparative study of twin cohorts in eight countries,” Twin Research , 6(5): 399–408.
• Singer, P., 1972, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(3): 229–243.
• Singh, R., and A. Alexandrova, forthcoming, “Happiness Economics as Technocracy,” Behavioural Public Policy , first online 12 Dec 2019: doi:10.17863/CAM.46854
• Sizer, L., 2010, “Good and good for you: An affect theory of happiness,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 80(1): 133–163.
• Skidelsky, E., 2014, “What Can We Learn From Happiness Surveys?,” Journal of Practical Ethics , 2(2): 20–32.
• –––, 2017, “Happiness, Pleasure, and Belief,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 95(3): 435–446.
• Slote, M., 1982, “Goods and Lives,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 63: 311–26.
• –––, 1983, Goods and Virtues , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Smart, J. J. C., 1973, “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics,” Utilitarianism: For and Against , J. J. C. Smart and B. Williams, New York: Cambridge University Press: 3–74.
• Snow, N. E., and Trivigno, F. V., 2014, The Philosophy and Psychology of Character and Happiness , New York: Routledge.
• Sosis, C., 2012, “Happiness: The Potential Power of Environment,” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication , 7: 1–10.
• –––, 2014, “Hedonic possibilities and heritability statistics,” Philosophical Psychology , 27(5): 681–702.
• Spahn, A., 2015, “Can Technology Make Us Happy?,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Cham: Springer, 93–113.
• Sprigge, T. L. S., 1987, The Rational Foundations of Ethics , New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1991, “The Greatest Happiness Principle,” Utilitas , 3(1): 37–51.
• Stenberg, J., 2019, “The All-Happy God,” Faith and Philosophy , 36(4): 423–41.
• Stevenson, C. M., 2018, “Experience Machines, Conflicting Intuitions and the Bipartite Characterization of Well-Being,” Utilitas , 30(4): 383–98.
• Stevenson, B. and J. Wolfers, 2008, “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , Spring 2008: 1–87.
• Stiglitz, J. E., J.-P. Fitoussi, and M. Durand, 2019, Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being , New York: New Press.
• Stiglitz, J. E., Amartya. Sen, and J.-Paul. Fitoussi, 2009, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress , Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
• Sugden, R., 2008, “Capability, Happiness, and Opportunity,” Capabilities and Happiness , L. Bruni, F. Comim, and M. Pugno (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 299–322.
• Suikkanen, J., 2011, “An Improved Whole Life Satisfaction Theory of Happiness,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1): 1–18.
• –––, 2019. “The Advice Models of Happiness: A Response to Feldman,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 9(2), available online , doi:10.5502/ijw.v9i2.837
• Sumner, L. W., 1996, Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2000, “Something In Between,” Well-Being and Morality , R. Crisp and B. Hooker (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1–19.
• Tatarkiewicz, W., 1976, Analysis of Happiness , The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Telfer, E., 1980, Happiness , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Thaler, R. H. and C. R. Sunstein, 2008, Nudge : improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Thomas, D. A. L., 1968, “Happiness,” Philosophical Quarterly , 18: 97–113.
• Tiberius, V., 2006, “Well-Being: Psychological Research for Philosophers,” Philosophy Compass , 1: 493–505.
• –––, 2008, The Reflective Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2014, Moral Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction , New York: Routledge
• –––, 2018, Well-Being As Value Fulfillment , New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
• Tiberius, V. and A. Plakias, 2010, “Well-Being,” The Moral Psychology Handbook , J. Doris, G. Harman, S. Nichols, et al . (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Trout, J. D., 2005, “Paternalism and Cognitive Bias,” Law and Philosophy , 24: 393–434.
• –––, 2009, The Empathy Gap: Building bridges to the good life and the good society , New York: Viking Press.
• Trout, J. D., and S. A. Buttar, 2000, “Resurrecting ‘Death Taxes’: Inheritance, Redistribution, and the Science of Happiness,” Journal of Law & Politics , 16(4): 765–847.
• van der Deijl, Willem, 2016, “What Happiness Science Can Learn from John Stuart Mill,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 6(1): 164–79.
• –––, 2017a, “Are Measures of Well-Being Philosophically Adequate?,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 47(3): 209–34.
• –––, 2017b, The Measurement of Wellbeing in Economics: Philosophical Explorations , Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
• –––, 2017c, “Which Problem of Adaptation?,” Utilitas , 29(4): 474–92.
• van der Rijt, J.-W., 2013, “Public Policy and the Conditional Value of Happiness,” Economics and Philosophy , 29(3): 381–408.
• –––, 2015, “The Political Turn Towards Happiness,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Cham: Springer, 215–31.
• Veenhoven, R., 1984, Conditions of Happiness , Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• –––, 1997, “Advances in Understanding Happiness,” Revue Québécoise de Psychologie , 18: 29–79.
• –––, 2005, “Is Life Getting Better? How Long and Happily Do People Live in Modern Society?” European Psychologist , 10(4): 330–343.
• Velleman, J. D., 1991, “Well-Being and Time,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 72(1): 48–77.
• Verhoef, A., 2018, “Paul Ricoeur: Philosophy, Theology and Happiness,” Stellenbosch Theological Journal , 4(2): 151–66.
• Vitrano, C., 2010, “The subjectivity of happiness,” Journal of Value Inquiry , 44(1): 47–54.
• –––, 2014, The Nature and Value of Happiness , Boulder: Westview Press.
• Višak, T., 2015, “Sacrifices of Self Are Prudential Harms: A Reply to Carbonell,” The Journal of Ethics , 19(2): 219–29.
• Vittersø, J., ed., 2016, Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being , Berlin: Springer.
• Von Wright, G. H., 1963, The Varieties of Goodness , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Walker, M., 2011, “Happy-People-Pills for All,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1): 1–22.
• Waterman, A. S., 1993, “Two Conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of Personal Expressiveness (Eudaimonia) and Hedonic Enjoyment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64(4): 678–691.
• –––, ed., 2013, The Best within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia , Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Weijers, D., 2013, “Intuitive Biases in Judgments about Thought Experiments: The Experience Machine Revisited,” Philosophical Writings , 41(1): 17–31.
• –––, 2014, “Nozick’s experience machine is dead, long live the experience machine!,” Philosophical Psychology , 27(4): 513–535.
• White, M. D., 2013, “Can We—and Should We—Measure Well-Being?,” Review of Social Economy , 71(4): 526–33.
• White, M. P. and P. Dolan, 2009, “Accounting for the Richness of Daily Activities,” Psychological Science , 20(8): 1000–1008.
• White, N. P., 2006, A Brief History of Happiness , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wierzbicka, A., 2004, “‘Happiness’ in cross-linguistic & cross-cultural perspective,” Daedalus , 133(2): 34–43.
• Williams, B., 1981, Moral Luck. Moral Luck , New York, Cambridge University Press: 20–39.
• Wilson, J., 1968, “Happiness,” Analysis , 29: 13–21.
• Wodak, D., 2019, “What If Well-Being Measurements Are Non-Linear?,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 97(1): 29–45.
• Wong, D. B., 2013, “On Learning What Happiness Is,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 81–101.
• Wren-Lewis, S, 2013, “Well-Being as a Primary Good: Towards Legitimate Well-Being Policy,” Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly , 31(2): 2–9.
• –––, 2014, “How successfully can we measure well-being through measuring happiness?,” South African Journal of Philosophy , 33: 417–432.
• –––, 2019, The Happiness Problem: Expecting Better in an Uncertain World , Chicago, IL: Policy Press.
• Zamuner, E., 2013, “Happiness, Consciousness, and the Ontology of Mind,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 237–54.
• Zhang, E. Y., 2019, “Forgetfulness and Flow: ‘Happiness’ in Zhuangzi’s Daoism,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 77–84.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• World Database of Happiness , Erasmus University of Rotterdam.
• Positive Psychology Center , University of Pennsylvania.
• The Happiness and Well-Being Project , with Suggested Readings and links to Funded Research , Saint Louis University.

Aquinas, Thomas | Aristotle | Bentham, Jeremy | character, moral: empirical approaches | communitarianism | consequentialism | economics: philosophy of | emotion | ethics: ancient | ethics: virtue | hedonism | Kant, Immanuel | liberalism | Mill, John Stuart | moral psychology: empirical approaches | pain | paternalism | Plato | pleasure | well-being

Acknowledgments

For helpful comments, many thanks are due to Anna Alexandrova, Robert Biswas-Diener, Thomas Carson, Irwin Goldstein, Richard Lucas, Jason Raibley, Eric Schwitzgebel, Stephen Schueller, Adam Shriver, Edward Zalta, and an anonymous referee for the SEP. Portions of Section 2 are adapted from Haybron 2008, “Philosophy and the Science of Subjective Well-Being,” in Eid and Larsen, The Science of Subjective Well-Being , and used with kind permission of Guilford Press.

Copyright © 2020 by Dan Haybron < dan . haybron @ slu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Happiness Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on happiness.

Happiness is something which we can’t describe in words it can only be felt from someone’s expression of a smile. Likewise, happiness is a signal or identification of good and prosperous life. Happiness is very simple to feel and difficult to describe. Moreover, happiness comes from within and no one can steal your happiness.

Can Money Buy You Happiness?

Every day we see and meet people who look happy from the outside but deep down they are broken and are sad from the inside. For many people, money is the main cause of happiness or grief. But this is not right. Money can buy you food, luxurious house, healthy lifestyle servants, and many more facilities but money can’t buy you happiness.

And if money can buy happiness then the rich would be the happiest person on the earth. But, we see a contrary image of the rich as they are sad, fearful, anxious, stressed, and suffering from various problems.

In addition, they have money still they lack in social life with their family especially their wives and this is the main cause of divorce among them.

Also, due to money, they feel insecurity that everyone is after their money so to safeguard their money and them they hire security. While the condition of the poor is just the opposite. They do not have money but they are happy with and stress-free from these problems.

In addition, they take care of their wife and children and their divorce rate is also very low.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Happiness Comes from Within

As we now know that we can’t buy happiness with money and there is no other shortcut to happiness. It is something that you feel from within.

In addition, true happiness comes from within yourself. Happiness is basically a state of mind.

Moreover, it can only be achieved by being positive and avoiding any negative thought in mind. And if we look at the bright side of ourselves only then we can be happy.

Happiness in a Relationship

People nowadays are not satisfied with their relationship because of their differences and much other reason. But for being happy in a relationship we have to understand that there are some rules or mutual understanding that keeps a relationship healthy and happy.

Firstly, take care of yourself then your partner because if you yourself are not happy then how can you make your partner happy.

Secondly, for a happy and healthy relationship give you partner some time and space. In addition, try to understand their feeling and comfort level because if you don’t understand these things then you won’t be able to properly understand your partner.

Most importantly, take initiative and plan to go out with your partner and family. Besides, if they have plans then go with them.

To conclude, we can say that happiness can only be achieved by having positive thinking and enjoying life. Also, for being happy and keeping the people around us happy we have to develop a healthy relationship with them. Additionally, we also have to give them the proper time.

FAQs about Happiness

Q.1 What is True Happiness? A.1 True happiness means the satisfaction that you find worthy. The long-lasting true happiness comes from life experience, a feeling of purpose, and a positive relationship.

Q.2 Who is happier the rich or the poor and who is more wealthy rich or poor? A.2 The poor are happier then the rich but if we talk about wealth the rich are more wealthy then the poor. Besides, wealth brings insecurity, anxiety and many other problems.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essays About Happiness: 5 Essay Examples and 6 Writing Prompts

Being happy and content is essential to living a successful life. If you are writing essays about happiness, start by reading our helpful guide.

Whenever we feel positive emotions rushing through our heads, chances are we are feeling happy. Happiness is what you feel when you enter the house, the smell of your favorite food being cooked or when you finally save up enough money to buy something you’ve wanted. It is an undeniably magical feeling. 

Happiness can do wonders for your productivity and well-being; when you are happy, you are more energetic, optimistic, and motivated. So it is, without a doubt, important. However, do not become caught up in trying to be happy, as this may lead to worse problems. Instead, allow yourself to feel your emotions; be authentic, even if that means feeling a little more negative.

5 Top Essay Examples

1. causes of happiness by otis curtis, 2. how to be happy by tara parker-pope, 3. reflections on ‘happiness’ by shahzada sultan.

• 4.  Happiness is Overrated by John Gorman

5. Toxic positivity by Suhani Mahajan

6 prompts for essays about happiness, 1. why is it important to be happy, 2. what is happiness to you, 3. the role of material things in happiness, 4. how does happiness make you more productive, 5. is true happiness achievable, 6. happiness vs. truth.

“If you don’t feel good about yourself you will have a similarly negative attitude towards others and education is one way of having good self-esteem, as it helps you to live life successfully and happily. Education is one way of getting that dream job and education is an essential cog in the wheel to living comfortably and happily. One English survey that included over 15,000 participants revealed that 81 percent of people who had achieved a good level of education had a high level of life satisfaction.”

Based on personal beliefs and research, Curtis’ essay describes different contributing causes to people’s happiness. These include a loving, stable family and good health. Interestingly, there is a positive correlation between education level and happiness, as Curtis cites statistics showing that education leads to high self-esteem, which can make you happier. 

“Socratic questioning is the process of challenging and changing irrational thoughts. Studies show that this method can reduce depression symptoms. The goal is to get you from a negative mindset (“I’m a failure.”) to a more positive one (“I’ve had a lot of success in my career. This is just one setback that doesn’t reflect on me. I can learn from it and be better.”)”

Parker-Pope writes about the different factors of happiness and how to practice mindfulness and positivity in this guide. She gives tips such as doing breathing exercises, moving around more, and spending time in places and with people that make you happy. Most importantly, however, she reminds readers that negative thoughts should not be repressed. Instead, we should accept them but challenge that mindset.

“Happiness is our choice of not leaving our mind and soul at the mercy of the sways of excitement. Happiness cannot eliminate sorrow, suffering, pain or death from the scheme of things, but it can help keep fear, anxiety, sadness, hopelessness, pessimism and other fathers of unhappiness at bay.”

Sultan discusses what happiness means to her personally. It provides an escape from all the dreariness and lousy news of daily life, not eliminating negative thoughts but keeping them at a distance, even just for a moment. She writes that to be happy; we should not base our happiness on the outcomes of our actions. We cannot control the world around us, so we should not link our happiness to it. If something doesn’t go our way, that is just how the world works. It is useless to be sad over what we cannot control.

4.   Happiness is Overrated by John Gorman

“Our souls do float across the sea of life, taking on water as they go, sinking ever so slightly — perhaps even imperceptibly — into despair. But our souls are not the bucket. Happiness itself is. And it’s the bucket we use to pour water out our souls and keep us afloat. What we really need is peace. Peace patches the holes in our souls and stops the leaking. Once we have peace, we will no longer need to seek happiness.”

In his essay, Gorman reflects on how he stopped trying to chase happiness and instead focused on finding peace in life. He writes that we are often so desperate looking for happiness that our lives become complicated, chaotic, and even depressing at times. He wants readers to do what they are passionate about and be their authentic selves; that way, they will find true happiness. You might also be interested in these essays about courage .

“That’s the mindset most of us have. Half of toxic positivity is just the suppression of 200% acceptable feelings such as anger, fear, sadness, confusion, and more. Any combination of such feelings is deemed “negative.” Honestly, mix ‘em up and serve them to me in a cocktail, eh? (Fine, fine, a mocktail. I reserve my right to one of those little umbrellas though.)

But by closing ourselves off to anything but positivity, we’re experiencing the same effects as being emotionally numb. Why are we doing this to ourselves?”

Mahajan writes about the phenomenon known as “toxic positivity” in which everyone is expected to be happy with their lives. It trivializes people’s misfortunes and sufferings, telling them to be happy with what they have instead. Mahajan opposes this, believing that everyone’s feelings are valid. She writes that it’s okay to be sad or angry at times, and the stigma around “negative feelings” should be erased. When we force ourselves to be happy, we may feel emotionally numb or even sad, the exact opposite of being happy. 

Many would say that happiness aids you in many aspects of your life. Based on personal experience and research, discuss the importance of being happy. Give a few benefits or advantages of happiness. These can include physical, mental, and psychological benefits, as well as anything else you can think of. 

Happiness means different things to different people and may come from various sources. In your essay, you can also explain how you define happiness. Reflect on this feeling and write about what makes you happy and why. Explain in detail for a more convincing essay; be sure to describe what you are writing about well. 

Happiness has a myriad of causes, many of which are material. Research the extent to which material possessions can make one happy, and write your essay about whether or not material things can truly make us happy. Consider the question, “Can money buy happiness?” Evaluate the extent to which it can or cannot, depending on your stance.  

Happiness has often been associated with a higher level of productivity. In your essay, look into the link between these two. In particular, discuss the mental and chemical effects of happiness. Since this topic is rooted in research and statistics, vet your sources carefully: only use the most credible sources for an accurate essay.

In their essays, many, including Gorman and Mahajan, seem to hold a more critical view of happiness. Our world is full of suffering and despair, so some ask: “Can we truly be happy on this earth?” Reflect on this question and make the argument for your position. Be sure to provide evidence from your own experiences and those of others. 

In dystopian stories, authorities often restrict people’s knowledge to keep them happy. We are seeing this even today, with some governments withholding crucial information to keep the population satisfied or stable. Write about whether you believe what they are doing is defensible or not, and provide evidence to support your point. 

For help with this topic, read our guide explaining “what is persuasive writing ?”

For help picking your next essay topic, check out our top essay topics about love .

The Science of Happiness in Positive Psychology 101

Whether on a global or an individual level, the pursuit of happiness is one that is gaining traction and scientific recognition.

There are many definitions of happiness, and we will also explore those in this article. For now, we invite you to think of a time when you were happy. Were you alone? With others? Inside? Outside.

At the end of this article, revisit that memory. You may have new insight as to what made that moment “happy,” as well as tips to train your brain towards more happiness.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Happiness & Subjective Wellbeing Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify sources of authentic happiness and strategies to boost wellbeing.

This Article Contains:

A definition of happiness, a look at the science of happiness, the scientific research on happiness at work, 17 interesting facts and findings, a study showing how acts of kindness make us happier, the global pursuit of happiness, measures of happiness, four qualities of life.

• How to Train your Brain for Happiness

A Take-Home Message

In general, happiness is understood as the positive emotions we have in regards to the pleasurable activities we take part in through our daily lives.

Pleasure, comfort, gratitude, hope, and inspiration are examples of positive emotions that increase our happiness and move us to flourish. In scientific literature, happiness is referred to as hedonia (Ryan & Deci, 2001), the presence of positive emotions and the absence of negative emotions.

In a more broad understanding, human wellbeing is made up of both hedonic and Eudaimonic principles, the literature on which is vast and describes our personal meaning and purpose in life (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Research on happiness over the years has found that there are some contributing correlational factors that affect our happiness. These include (Ryan & Deci, 2001):

• Personality Type
• Positive Emotions versus Negative Emotions
• Attitude towards Physical Health
• Social Class and Wealth
• Attachment and Relatedness
• Goals and Self-Efficacy
• Time and Place.

So what is the “ science of happiness? ”

This is one of those times when something is exactly what it sounds like – it’s all about the science behinds what happiness is and how to experience it, what happy people do differently, and what we can do to feel happier.

This focus on happiness is new to the field of psychology; for many decades – basically since the foundation of psychology as a science in the mid- to late-1800s – the focus was on the less pleasant in life. The field focused on pathology, on the worst-scenario cases, on what can go wrong in our lives.

Although there was some attention paid to wellbeing, success, and high functioning, the vast majority of funding and research was dedicated to those who were struggling the most: those with severe mental illness, mental disorders, or those who have survived trauma and tragedy.

While there’s certainly nothing wrong with doing what we can to raise up those who are struggling, there was an unfortunate lack of knowledge about what we can do to bring us all up to a higher level of functioning and happiness.

Positive psychology changed all of that. Suddenly, there was space at the table for a focus on the positive in life, for “ what thoughts, actions, and behaviors make us more productive at work, happier in our relationships, and more fulfilled at the end of the day ” (Happify Daily, n.d.).

The science of happiness has opened our eyes to a plethora of new findings about the sunny side of life.

Current research and studies

For instance, we have learned a lot about what happiness is and what drives us.

Recent studies have shown us that:

• Money can only buy happiness up to about $75,000 – after that, it has no significant effect on our emotional wellbeing (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010).
• Most of our happiness is not determined by our genetics, but by our experiences and our day-to-day lives (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
• Trying too hard to find happiness often has the opposite effect and can lead us to be overly selfish (Mauss et al., 2012).
• Pursuing happiness through social means (e.g., spending more time with family and friends) is more likely to be effective than other methods (Rohrer et al., 2018).
• The pursuit of happiness is one place where we should consider ditching the SMART goals; it may be more effective to pursue “vague” happiness goals than more specific ones (Rodas et al., 2018).
• Happiness makes us better citizens – it is a good predictor of civic engagement in the transition to adulthood (Fang et al., 2018).
• Happiness leads to career success, and it doesn’t have to be “natural” happiness – researchers found that “experimentally enhancing” positive emotions also contributed to improved outcomes at work (Walsh et al., 2018).
• There is a linear relationship between religious involvement and happiness. Higher worship service attendance is correlated with more commitment to faith, and commitment to faith is related to greater compassion. Those more compassionate individuals are more likely to provide emotional support to others, and those who provide emotional support to others are more likely to be happy (Krause et al., 2018). It’s a long road, but a direct one!

Download 3 Free Happiness Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover authentic happiness and cultivate subjective well-being.

Download 3 Free Happiness Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

There’s been a ton of research on the effects of happiness in the workplace. Much of this is driven by companies who want to find a way to improve productivity, attract new talent, and get a dose of good publicity, all at the same time. After all, who wouldn’t want to do business with and/or work for a company full of happy employees?

Although the jury is still out on exactly how happy employees “should” be for maximum productivity, efficiency, and health, we have learned a few things about the effects of a happy workforce:

• People who are happy with their jobs are less likely to leave their jobs, less likely to be absent, and less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors at work.
• People who are happy with their jobs are more likely to engage in behavior that contributes to a happy and productive organization, more likely to be physically healthy, and more likely to be mentally healthy.
• Happiness and job performance are related—and the relationship likely works in both directions (e.g., happy people do a better job and people who do a good job are more likely to be happy).
• Unit- or team-level happiness is also linked to positive outcomes, including higher customer satisfaction, profit, productivity, employee turnover, and a safer work environment.
• In general, a happier organization is a more productive and successful organization (Fisher, 2010).

To sum up the findings we have so far, it’s easy to see that happiness at work does matter – for individuals, for teams, and for organizations overall. We don’t have all the answers about exactly how the relationship between happiness and productivity works, but we know that there is a relationship there.

Lately, many human resources managers, executives, and other organizational leaders have decided that knowing there’s a relationship is good enough evidence to establish happiness-boosting practices at work, which means that we have a lot of opportunities to see the impact of greater happiness at work in the future.

Research in this field is booming, and new findings are coming out all the time. Here are a few of the most interesting facts and findings so far:

• Happiness is linked to lower heart rate and blood pressure, as well as healthier heart rate variability.
• Happiness can also act as a barrier between you and germs – happier people are less likely to get sick.
• People who are happier enjoy greater protection against stress and release less of the stress hormone cortisol.
• Happy people tend to experience fewer aches and pains, including dizziness, muscle strain, and heartburn.
• Happiness acts as a protective factor against disease and disability (in general, of course).
• Those who are happiest tend to live significantly longer than those who are not.
• Happiness boosts our immune system, which can help us fight and fend off the common cold.
• Happy people tend to make others happier as well, and vice versa – those who do good, feel good!
• A portion of our happiness is determined by our genetics (but there’s still plenty of room for attitude adjustments and happiness-boosting exercises!).
• Smelling floral scents like roses can make us happier.
• Those who are paid by the hour may be happier than those on salary (however, these findings are limited, so take them with a grain of salt!).
• Relationships are much more conducive to a happy life than money.
• Happier people tend to wear bright colors; it’s not certain which way the relationship works, but it can’t hurt to throw on some brighter hues once in a while—just in case!
• Happiness can help people cope with arthritis and chronic pain better.
• Being outdoors – especially near the water – can make us happier.
• The holidays can be a stressful time, even for the happiest among us – an estimated 44% of women and 31% of men get the “holiday blues.”
• Happiness is contagious! When we spend time around happy people, we’re likely to get a boost of happiness as well.

Newman (2015) is the source for the first six facts and findings, and Florentine (2016) for the latter 11 .

Feeling blue? Treat yourself to a decadent dessert.

Feeling frustrated after an argument with a friend? Skip your workout and have an extra scoop of ice cream.

The message is clear: If you want to feel happy, you should focus on your own wishes and desires. Yet this is not the advice that many people grew up hearing. Indeed, most of the world’s religions (and grandmothers everywhere) have long suggested that people should focus on others first and themselves second.

Psychologists refer to such behavior as prosocial behavior and many recent studies have shown that when people have a prosocial focus, doing kind acts for others, their own happiness increases.

But how does prosocial behavior compare to treating yourself in terms of your happiness? And does treating yourself really make you feel happy?

Nelson et al. (2016) presented their research answering these questions.

Participants were divided into four groups and given new instructions each week for four weeks.

One group was instructed to perform random acts of kindness for themselves (such as going shopping or enjoying a favorite hobby); the second group was instructed to perform acts of kindness for others (such as visiting an elderly relative or helping someone carry groceries); the third group was instructed to perform acts of kindness to improve the world (such as recycling or donating to charity); the fourth group was instructed to keep track of their daily activities.

Each week, the participants reported their activities from the previous week, as well as their experience of positive and negative emotions.

At the beginning, the end, and again two weeks after the four-week period, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their psychological flourishing. As a measure of overall happiness, the questionnaire included questions about psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing .

The Results

The results of the study were striking. Only participants who engaged in prosocial behavior demonstrated improvements in psychological flourishing.

Participants who practiced prosocial behavior demonstrated increases in positive emotions from one week to the next. In turn, these increases in feelings such as happiness, joy, and enjoyment predicted increases in psychological flourishing at the end of the study. In other words, positive emotions appeared to have been a critical ingredient linking prosocial behavior to increases in flourishing.

But what about the people who treated themselves?

They did not show the same increases in positive emotions or psychological flourishing as those who engaged in acts of kindness. In fact, people who treated themselves did not differ in positive emotions, negative emotions, or psychological flourishing over the course of the study compared to those who merely kept track of their daily activities.

This research does not say that we shouldn’t treat ourselves, show ourselves self-love when we need it, or enjoy our relaxation when we have it. However, the results of this study strongly suggest that we are more likely to reach greater levels of happiness when we exhibit prosocial behavior and show others kindness through our actions.

In world economic circles, Richard Easterlin investigated the relationship between money and wellbeing.

The Easterlin paradox—”money does not buy happiness” (Mohun, 2012)—sparked a new wave of thinking about wealth and wellbeing.

In 1972, Bhutan chose to pursue a policy of happiness rather than a focus on economic growth tracked via their gross domestic product (GDPP). Subsequently, this little nation has been among the happiest, ranking amongst nations with far superior wealth (Kelly, 2012).

More global organizations and nations are becoming aware and supportive of the importance of happiness in today’s world. This has lead to The United Nations inviting nations to take part in a happiness survey, resulting in the “ World Happiness Report ,” a basis from which to steer public policy. Learn about the World Happiness Report for 2016 .

The United Nations also established  World Happiness Day , March 20 th , which was the result of efforts of the Bhutan Kingdom and their Gross National Happiness initiative (Helliwell et al., 2013).

Organizations such as the  New Economic Foundation are playing an influential role as an economic think tank that focuses on steering economic policy and development for the betterment of human wellbeing.

Ruut Veenhoven, a world authority on the scientific study of happiness, was one of the sources of inspiration for the United Nations General Assembly (2013) adopting happiness measures. Veenhoven is a founding member of the World Database of Happiness , which is a comprehensive scientific repository of happiness measures worldwide.

The objective of this organization is to provide a coordinated collection of data, with common interpretation according to a scientifically validated happiness theory, model, and body of research.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

At this point, you might be wondering: Is it possible to measure happiness? Many psychologists have devoted their careers to answering this question and in short, the answer is yes.

Happiness can be measured by these three factors: the presence of positive emotions, the absence of negative emotions, and life satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2001). It is a uniquely subjective experience, which means that nobody is better at reporting on someone’s happiness than the individuals themselves.

For this reason scales, self-report measures, and questionnaires are the most common formats for measuring happiness. The most recognized examples are the following:

• The PANAS (Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule);
• The SWLS (Satisfaction With Life Scale) ;
• The SHS (Subjective Happiness Scale)

However, there are  many instruments available to measure happiness that have proven reliable and valid over time (Hefferon & Boniwell, 2011).

Of the four dimensions, satisfaction is our personal subjective measure of happiness as we interpret life as a whole. Veenhoven’s (2010) global research into happiness suggests that happiness is possible for many.

This is an overview of his Four Qualities:

Using Veenhoven’s Four Qualities it is possible to assess the happiness of any country.

Liveability of environment

This dimension includes factors such as law, freedom, schooling, employment, electricity or gas, etc. It is a measurement of how well an environment meets what Maslow proposed as our basic needs (safety, security, shelter, food) (Maslow, 1943).

Life-ability of individuals

The ability of individuals to deal with life is important; both mental and physical health are identified as important factors, together with social values of solidarity, tolerance, and love (Veenhoven, 2010).

Utility of life

In this dimension, Veenhoven (2010) references a higher-order meaning, for example, religious affiliations.

Uchida et al. (2014) found that high levels of national disaster negatively impacted a nation’s level of happiness.

Satisfaction

Happiness is a complex construct that cannot be directly controlled. Through policy and individual and organizational action, one can endeavor to influence and increase happiness (Veenhoven, 2010).

However, happiness is a subjective experience and only once we change the way we perceive the world can we really begin sharing and creating happiness for others.

But is it possible to train yourself to be happier?

The answer is yes!

How to Train Your Brain for Happiness

At birth, our genetics provide us a set point that accounts for some portion of our happiness. Having enough food, shelter, and safety account for another portion.

There’s also quite a bit of happiness that’s entirely up to us (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).

By training our brain through awareness and exercises to think in a happier, more optimistic, and more resilient way, we can effectively train our brains for happiness.

New discoveries in the field of positive psychology show that physical health, psychological wellbeing, and physiological functioning are all improved by how we learn to “feel good” (Fredrickson, et al., 2000).

What Are The Patterns We Need To “Train Out” of Our Brains?

• Perfectionism  – Often confused with conscientiousness, which involves appropriate and tangible expectations, perfectionism involves inappropriate levels of expectations and intangible goals. It often produces problems for adults, adolescents, and children.
• Social comparison  – When we compare ourselves to others we often find ourselves lacking. Healthy social comparison is about finding what you admire in others and learning to strive for those qualities. However, the best comparisons we can make are with ourselves. How are you better than you were in the past?
• Materialism – Attaching our happiness to external things and material wealth is dangerous, as we can lose our happiness if our material circumstances change (Carter & Gilovich, 2010).
• Maximizing  – Maximizers search for better options even when they are satisfied. This leaves them little time to be present for the good moments in their lives and with very little gratitude (Schwartz et al., 2002).

Misconceptions About Mind Training

Some of the misconceptions about retraining your brain are simply untrue. Here are a few myths that need debunking:

1. We are products of our genetics so we cannot create change in our brains.

Our minds are malleable. Ten years ago we thought brain pathways were set in early childhood. In fact, we now know that there is huge potential for large changes through to your twenties, and neuroplasticity is still changing throughout one’s life.

The myelin sheath that covers your neural pathways gets thicker and stronger the more it is used (think of the plastic protective covering on wires); the more a pathway is used, the stronger the myelin and the faster the neural pathway. Simply put, when you practice feeling grateful, you notice more things to be grateful for.

2. Brain training is brainwashing.

Brainwashing is an involuntary change. If we focus on training our mind to see the glass half full instead of half empty, that is a choice.

3. If we are too happy we run the risk of becoming overly optimistic.

There is no such thing as overly optimistic, and science shows that brain training for positivity includes practices like  mindfulness and gratitude. No one has ever overdosed on these habits.

How Is The Brain Wired For Happiness?

Our brains come already designed for happiness. We have caregiving systems in place for eye contact, touch, and vocalizations to let others know we are trustworthy and secure .

Our brains also regulate chemicals like oxytocin.

People who have more oxytocin trust more readily, have increased tendencies towards monogamy, and exhibit more caregiving behavior. These behaviors reduce stress which lowers production of hormones like cortisol and inhibits the cardiovascular response to stress (Kosfeld et al., 2005).

The following TED talk provides an insight into how we can overcome our negative mental patterns:

If happiness has little to do with having too many resources, then it is an inner state that we have the power to cultivate. The above video even offers specific exercises for you to try. Just by doing them, you are actively re-wiring your brain towards calm and happy sensations.

Meanwhile, this TED talk gives a better understanding of how to wire your brain to accept the positivity and happiness in your life:

The negativity bias that Dr. Rick Hanson discusses can help us understand how we can activate and “install” positive thinking as part of our core brain chemistry. If you don’t have a moment to watch either of these videos now, make time for it later—they are rich with relevant data and tips.

17 Exercises To Increase Happiness and Wellbeing

Add these 17 Happiness & Subjective Well-Being Exercises [PDF] to your toolkit and help others experience greater purpose, meaning, and positive emotions.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Happiness is the overall subjective experience of our positive emotions. There are many factors which influence our happiness, and ongoing research continues to uncover what makes us happiest.

This global pursuit of happiness has resulted in measures such as the World Happiness Report, while the World Happiness Database is working to collaborate and consolidate the existing happiness pursuits of different nations.

We are living in a time when the conditions for happiness are known. This can be disheartening at times when there is much negativity in the world.

There is, however, good news in this situation: neuroplasticity.

The human brain is wired for happiness and positive connections with others. It is actually possible to experience and learn happiness despite what has been genetically hardwired.

In a world where the focus on happiness is growing and the mirror is turning back towards ourselves, the happiness of the world relies on the happiness within each one of us and how we act, share, and voice the importance of happiness for everyone.

What are the steps you are taking to make yourself and others happier? Let us know by leaving a comment below!

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Happiness Exercises for free .

• Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 (1), 146.
• Fang, S., Galambos, N. L., Johnson, M. D., & Krahn, H. J. (2018). Happiness is the way: Paths to civic engagement between young adulthood and midlife.  International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42 (4), 425–433.
• Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work.  International Journal of Management Reviews ,  12 (4), 384–412.
• Florentine, E. (2016, July 1).  11 Scientific facts about happiness.  Bustle . Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/articles/169675-11-scientific-facts-about-happiness-that-youll-want-to-know.
• Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions . Motivation and Emotion , 24 (4), 237–258.
• Happify Daily. (n.d.).  What is the science of happiness? Retrieved from https://www.happify.com/hd/what-is-the-science-of-happiness/.
• Hefferon, K., & Boniwell, I. (2011). Positive psychology: Theory, research, and applications . Open University Press.
• Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2013) . World happiness report 2013. United Nations.
• Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being.  Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences ,  107 (38), 16489–16493.
• Kelly, A. (2012) Gross national happiness in Bhutan: the big idea from a tiny state that could change the world. The Guardian . Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/bhutan-wealth-happiness-counts?CMP=share_btn_link
• Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in human s . Nature , 435 (7042), 673–676.
• Krause, N., Ironson, G., & Hill, P. (2018). Religious involvement and happiness: Assessing the mediating role of compassion and helping others.  The Journal of Social Psychology ,  158 (2), 256–270.
• Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change.  Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), 111–131.
• Maguire, E., Gadian, D., Johnsrude, I., Good, C., Ashburne, J., Frackowiak, R., & Frith, C. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 97(8), 4398-4403.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation . Psychological Review , 50 (4), 370.
• Mauss, I. B., Savino, N. S., Anderson, C. L., Weisbuch, M., Tamir, M., & Laudenslager, M. L. (2012). The pursuit of happiness can be lonely.  Emotion, 12 (5), 908–912.
• Mohun, J. (2012) The economics book . DK.
• Nelson, S. K., Layous, K., Cole, S. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016). Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing.  Emotion, 16 (6), 850–861.
• Newman, K. M. (2015, July 28). Six ways happiness is good for your health . Greater Good Magazine .  Retrieved from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/six_ways_happiness_is_good_for_your_health
• Rodas, M. A., Ahluwalia, R., & Olson, N. J. (2018). A path to more enduring happiness: Take a detour from specific emotional goals.  Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (4), 673–681.
• Rohrer, J. M., Richter, D., Brümmer, M., Wagner, G. G., & Schmukle, S. C. (2018). Successfully striving for happiness: Socially engaged pursuits predict increases in life satisfaction.  Association for Psychological Science ,  29 (8), 1291–1298.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Reviews Psychology, 52 , 141–66.
• Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Know Thyself and Become What You Are: A Eudemonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 9:13 -39, 2008.
• Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 (5), 1178.
• Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of clinical psychology , 62(3), 373-386.
• Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, (2006). Achieving Sustainable Gains in Happiness: Change your actions, not your circumstances . Journal of Happiness Studies (2006) 7:55-86.
• Uchida, Y., Takahashi, Y., & Kawahara, K. (2014). Changes in hedonic and eudaimonic well-being after a severe nationwide disaster: The case of the great east Japan earthquake . Journal of Happiness Studies, 15 , 207–221.
• United Nations General Assembly. (2013).  Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development.  Sixty-seventh session Agenda item 14. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/697
• Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life: Ordering concepts and measures of the good life . Journal of Happiness Studies ,  1 , 1–39.
• Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number: Is that possible and desirable? Journal of Happiness Studies , 11 , 605–629.
• Walsh, L. C., Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Does happiness promote career success? Revisiting the evidence.  Journal of Career Assessment, 26 (2), 199–219.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Thank you for this beautiful well written article. I came across it during my research regarding the science of happiness. The beauty in writing this post is the power to influence souls in a positive manner many who you will not meet.

Sending some love and light to you and all those who get to read your blog.

Being in the field of Human Resource for four decades, coming across and dealing with millions of minds, after reading your article, gives a feeling that I have learnt something new today…

Thank you and congratulations for such a informative work.

God bless…

Thank you for your search light into one of the nerve center of our generation. i will like to use part of this in my upcoming book

Hello Katherine, Now reading https://positivepsychology.com/happiness/ Salute to you for enriching us. Nearly hundred of us relatives are creating an audio book for our blind uncle about life skills. Any quote from you that I can add in the document? Will be grateful. regards, Prabodh Sirur

Hi Prabodh,

Wow, that sounds like a lovely gift for your uncle! We actually have a couple of posts containing quotes about happiness, so you may want to take a look at those for some inspiration. You can find those here and here .

Hope this helps, and good luck with the audiobook!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Thanks for your article, I translated this article for a mental health lesson and I really enjoyed this article.

Thank you for this super helpful article!!

Thank You for such an Informative and Detailed Article on Science of Happiness. I am a Budding Happiness Life Coach and stumbled on this Article. This gives me more understanding of Happiness in Scientific way, with your permission, I would like to share my learning in my course. Thank You and looking forward for more such Articles. Thank You and God Bless You

Hi Srinivas, Thank you for your lovely feedback. We’re glad you liked the article. Feel free to share it with others by clicking ‘Yes’ on the ‘Was this article useful to you’ button. From there, a range of sharing options will appear. – Nicole | Community Manager

Thanks, very nice lecture and informative But I wish to know more about role of religious effects on Happiness? another thing is it ok to translate lecture to other language and share it? Regards Dr Eirebi Albogasim

Hi Dr. Albogasim, Thanks for reading. There’s quite a bit of research showing that those who practice religion tend to be happier than the general population ( here’s an article on the topic). And yes, feel free to translate and share the lecture. – Nicole | Community Manager

I stumbled on your article as I am researching on Happiness to publish my 3rd book. Thanks for sharing! A very elaborate and informative article. The “Take home message” is very encouraging. And I vouch for the neuroplasticity of the brain. We can train ourselves to be Happy. Once we change our attitude, it is easy to be Happy. I learnt how to be Happy at the age of 23. Few years back I posted an article sharing my findings on Happiness in this Linked-in forum. Please see the link for the same https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/easy-happy-ramesh-thota-pmp-cqa/ . Appreciate if you can share your views.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Embracing JOMO: Finding Joy in Missing Out

We’ve probably all heard of FOMO, or ‘the fear of missing out’. FOMO is the currency of social media platforms, eager to encourage us to [...]

The True Meaning of Hedonism: A Philosophical Perspective

“If it feels good, do it, you only live once”. Hedonists are always up for a good time and believe the pursuit of pleasure and [...]

Happiness Economics: Can Money Buy Happiness?

Do you ever daydream about winning the lottery? After all, it only costs a small amount, a slight risk, with the possibility of a substantial [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (22)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Happiness Exercises Pack [PDF]

What Is Happiness?

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Happiness is an electrifying and elusive state. Philosophers, theologians, psychologists, and even economists have long sought to define it. And since the 1990s, a whole branch of psychology— positive psychology —has been dedicated to pinning it down. More than simply positive mood, happiness is a state of well-being that encompasses living a good life, one with a sense of meaning and deep contentment.

Feeling joyful has its health perks as well. A growing body of research also suggests that happiness can improve your physical health; feelings of positivity and fulfillment seem to benefit cardiovascular health, the immune system, inflammation levels, and blood pressure, among other things. Happiness has even been linked to a longer lifespan as well as a higher quality of life and well-being.

Attaining happiness is a global pursuit. Researchers find that people from every corner of the world rate happiness more important than other desirable personal outcomes, such as obtaining wealth, acquiring material goods, and getting into heaven.

Happiness is not the result of bouncing from one joy to the next; researchers find that achieving happiness typically involves times of considerable dis comfort. Genetic makeup, life circumstances, achievements, marital status, social relationships, even your neighbors—all influence how happy you are. Or can be. So do individual ways of thinking and expressing feelings. Research shows that much of happiness is under personal control.

Regularly indulging in small pleasures, getting absorbed in challenging activities, setting and meeting goals , maintaining close social ties, and finding purpose beyond oneself all increase life satisfaction. It isn't happiness per se that promotes well-being, it’s the actual pursuit that’s key.

For more, see How to Find Happiness.

Happy people live with purpose. They find joy in lasting relationships, working toward their goals, and living according to their values. The happy person is not enamored with material goods or luxury vacations. This person is fine with the simple pleasures of life—petting a dog, sitting under a tree, enjoying a cup of tea. Here are a few of the outward signs that someone is content.

• Is open to learning new things
• Is high in humility and patience
• Smiles and laughs readily
• Goes with the flow
• Practices compassion
• Is often grateful
• Exercises self-care
• Enjoys healthy relationships
• Is happy for other people
• Gives and receives without torment
• Lives with meaning and purpose
• Does not feel entitled and has fewer expectations
• Is not spiteful or insulting
• Does not hold grudges
• Does not register small annoyances
• Does not angst over yesterday and tomorrow
• Does not play games
• Is not a martyr or victim
• Is not stingy with their happiness

For more, see How To Find Happiness.

Misperceptions abound when it comes to what we think will make us happy. People often believe that happiness will be achieved once they reach a certain milestone, such as finding the perfect partner or landing a particular salary.

Humans, however, are excellent at adapting to new circumstances, which means that people will habituate to their new relationship or wealth, return to a baseline level of happiness, and seek out the next milestone. Fortunately, the same principle applies to setbacks—we are resilient and will most likely find happiness again.

Regarding finances specifically, research shows that the sweet spot for yearly income is between $60,000 and $95,000 a year, not a million-dollar salary. Earnings above $95,000 do not equate to increased well-being; a person earning $150,000 a year will not necessarily be as happy as a person earning a lot less.

The type of thoughts below exemplify these misconceptions about happiness:

• "I’ll be happy when I’m rich and successful."
• "I’ll be happy when I’m married to the right person."
• "Landing my dream job will make me happy."
• "I can’t be happy when my relationship has fallen apart."
• "I will never recover from this diagnosis."
• "The best years of my life are over."

For more, see The Science of Happiness.

Positive psychology is the branch of psychology that explores human flourishing. It asks how individuals can experience positive emotions, develop authentic relationships, find flow, achieve their goals, and build a meaningful life.

Propelled by University of Pennsylvania psychologist Martin Seligman , the movement emerged from the desire for a fundamental shift in psychology—from revolving around disease and distress to providing the knowledge and skills to cultivate growth, meaning, and fulfillment. For more, see Positive Psychology.

Every person has unique life experiences, and therefore unique experiences of happiness. That being said, when scientists examine the average trajectory of happiness over the lifespan, some patterns tend to emerge. Happiness and satisfaction begin relatively high, decrease from adolescence to midlife , and rise throughout older adulthood.

What makes someone happy in their 20s may not spark joy in their 80s, and joy in someone’s 80s may have seemed irrelevant in their 20s. It’s valuable for people to continue observing and revising what makes them happy at a given time to continue striving for fulfillment throughout their lifetime.

For more, see Happiness Over the Lifespan.

Health and happiness are completely intertwined. That’s not to say that people with illnesses can’t be happy, but that attending to one’s health is an important—and perhaps underappreciated—component of well-being.

Researchers have identified many links between health and happiness—including a longer lifespan—but it’s difficult to distinguish which factor causes the other. Making changes to diet , exercise, sleep, and more can help everyone feel more content.

For more, see Happiness and Health .

When we say goodbye to obsession, stop relying on another person to “save us,” and create a life worth living, we free ourselves from the neediness that destroys good relationships.

For every accomplishment, there is an equal and opposite emotional reaction that is likely to leave you feeling awful.

Singlehood is a desired state for some people, but not for other single people. What differentiates people who are single by choice from people who are involuntarily single?

Romantic excitement is often stormy, but in our speedy society, dynamic calmness is the new romantic excitement.

If you are a recent empty nester struggling to find your new identity or a new mom wanting to create balance in your life, these suggestions can help.

Struggling to find joy in sobriety? Uncover the powerful tool that can bring happiness back into your life.

Mental health has come to the forefront of societal issues in recent years. While there are various resources available in society to help us, this journey must start within.

Personal Perspective: We all go through it, no one is immune, and nothing produces more universal shame in our society than aging.

Avoid getting caught up in minutiae and make smarter decisions.

Ho to stay motivated, and keep listening to your body and mind.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

The different meanings

Study and assessment, predictors of happiness, other determinants.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Frontiers - The Art of Happiness: An Explorative Study of a Contemplative Program for Subjective Well-Being
• Academia - The Concept of Happiness
• WebMD - Choosing to be Happy
• Open Library Publishing Platform - PSYC 100: Principles of Psychology F23 - Happiness: The Science of Subjective Well-Being
• Psychology Today - Happiness
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Happiness
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Happiness
• Verywell Mind - What is Happiness?
• Social Sci LibreTexts - Happiness- The Science of Subjective Well-Being
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

happiness , in psychology , a state of emotional well-being that a person experiences either in a narrow sense, when good things happen in a specific moment, or more broadly, as a positive evaluation of one’s life and accomplishments overall—that is, subjective well-being. Happiness can be distinguished both from negative emotions (such as sadness, fear, and anger) and also from other positive emotions (such as affection, excitement, and interest). This emotion often co-occurs with a specific facial expression: the smile .

People from around the world tend to have a similar concept of happiness and can recognize happiness in others. As a result, the specific emotion of happiness is often included as one of a small number of basic emotions that cannot be broken down into more fundamental emotions and that may combine to form other, more complex emotions (in fact, it is sometimes the only positive emotion that is considered to be basic). Thus, happiness is an important concept for researchers who study emotions.

An entire field of research has developed around the more inclusive concept of subjective well-being, which is characterized by a broad collection of happiness-related phenomena rather than a specific momentary emotion. As one might expect, people who are happy in this way tend to experience frequent positive emotions and infrequent negative emotions. This broader form of happiness is not purely emotional, however: it also has a cognitive component. When happy people are asked to think back on the conditions and events in their lives, they tend to evaluate these conditions and events positively. Thus, happy people report being satisfied with their lives and the various domains in their lives.

Interestingly, these different components of happiness do not always co-occur within the same person. It is possible that someone could experience a great deal of negative emotions yet still acknowledge that the conditions of his or her life are good ones. For example, someone who works with the poor, the sick, or the destitute may experience frequent negative emotions but may also feel satisfied with life because the work is worthwhile. Similarly, people who spend lots of time engaging in hedonistic pleasures may experience frequent momentary positive emotions, but they may also feel that life is empty and meaningless. Subjective well-being researchers are interested in the various factors that influence these distinct components.

Psychologists are interested in happiness for two reasons. First, psychologists study happiness because laypeople are interested in happiness. When people from around the world are asked to list the things that are most important to them, happiness consistently tops the list. People rank attaining happiness as being more important than acquiring money, maintaining good health, and even going to heaven. Psychologists believe that they can help people achieve this goal of being happy by studying the factors that are associated with happiness.

A second reason why psychologists study happiness is because a person’s evaluative responses to the world may provide information about the basic characteristics of human nature . One of the most basic principles guiding psychological theory is that people and animals are motivated to approach things in the world that cause pleasure and to avoid things in the world that cause pain . Presumably, this behavior results from adaptive mechanisms that guide organisms toward resources and away from dangers. If so, the evaluative reactions of many people about the world should be useful and revealing. For instance, some psychologists have suggested that human beings have a basic need to experience strong and supportive social relationships. They point to evidence from the field of subjective well-being to support their claim—a person’s social relationships are reliably linked to his or her happiness. Thus, cataloging the correlates of happiness should provide important information about the features of human nature.

The results of scientific studies reveal several trends. For instance, when researchers ask people to report on their happiness, their answers tend to be consistent over time: people who say they are happy now also tend to say that they are happy when asked again in the future. Because the conditions in people’s lives don’t usually change that frequently, the stability of happiness measures provides support for the idea that these measures truly do tap this important construct. In addition, research shows that when life events do occur, people’s reports of happiness change in response.

Perhaps more importantly, when psychologists try to assess happiness in a variety of different ways, these measures all seem to converge on the same answer. For instance, when researchers ask people to provide self-reports of happiness, they tend to agree with informant-reports of happiness—that is, ratings provided by friends and acquaintances. Furthermore, psychological tests—such as those that ask subjects to list as many positive memories as they can within a minute—may also determine who is happy without even asking for an explicit judgment of happiness, and, again, these measures tend to agree with self-reports. Psychologists can even find evidence of happiness in the brain: certain patterns of brain activity are reliably associated with happiness.

When psychologists track people’s levels of happiness, most people report being in mildly positive moods most of the time. In addition, when psychologists ask people to rate their overall life satisfaction, most people report scores that are above neutral. This research finding is not limited to relatively well-off samples (like the college students who are often asked to participate in psychological studies). Instead, it has been replicated in many different populations in many nations around the world. Thus, when psychologists study the correlates of happiness, they are usually looking for factors that distinguish the very happy from the mildly happy rather than the happy from the miserable.

Psychologists have arrived at several surprising conclusions in their search for predictors of happiness. Many of the factors that may first come to mind do not seem to play a major role in happiness. For example, although people strive to acquire high-paying jobs and dream about winning the lottery, income is not strongly correlated with happiness. Wealthy people are happier than poorer people, but the difference is not very large. As one might expect, the association between money and happiness is strongest among very poor groups and among poor countries. Income leads to smaller and smaller gains in happiness as income levels rise.

Health also plays a role in subjective well-being, but the associations are, again, surprisingly small. Surveys of representative populations show that objective measures (including doctors’ reports, hospital visits, and lists of symptoms) are very weakly correlated with happiness. Subjective reports (such as a person’s own evaluation of his or her health) tend to correlate more strongly, but even these associations are, at most, moderate in size. In addition, although people with major health problems, such as paralyzing spinal-cord injuries, are quite a bit less happy than uninjured people, the difference is not as large as some might expect. Even people with very serious illnesses tend to report happiness scores that are above neutral.

The factor that has been most closely linked to high levels of happiness is social relationships. Research consistently shows that people who have strong social relationships tend to report higher levels of well-being. As with other domains, subjective reports of relationship quality and relationship satisfaction tend to exhibit the highest correlations with subjective well-being. But even more objective measures, including the number of close friends a person has, the number of social organizations to which the person belongs, and the amount of time the person spends with others, all show small to moderate correlations with happiness. As one might expect based on this research, specific types of social relationships are also important for subjective well-being. For instance, marital status is one of the strongest demographic predictors of happiness. Married people consistently report higher levels of happiness than single people, who report greater happiness than the widowed, divorced, or separated. Interestingly, however, it does not appear that marriage itself causes higher levels of subjective well-being. Longitudinal studies show that people only receive a small boost in happiness around the time they get married, and they quickly adapt to baseline levels. The differences between married and unmarried people are due primarily to the lasting negative effects of divorce and widowhood, along with selection effects that might actually predispose happy people to marry.

Other demographic characteristics also show weak associations with happiness. Religious people tend to report greater happiness than nonreligious people, though the size of these effects varies depending on whether religious beliefs or religious behaviors are measured. Factors such as intelligence, education, and job prestige are also only slightly related to well-being. Happiness does not seem to change dramatically over the course of the life span, except perhaps at the very end of the life when declines are somewhat steep. In addition, sex differences in subjective well-being are not large.

In contrast to the relatively weak effects of external circumstance, research shows that internal factors play a strong role in subjective well-being. Individual differences in happiness-related variables emerge early in life, are stable over time, and are at least partially heritable. For instance, behavioral genetic studies show that identical twins who were reared apart are quite a bit more similar in their levels of happiness than are fraternal twins who were reared apart. This suggests that genes play an important role. Most estimates put the heritability of subjective well-being components at around 40–50 percent for positive emotional states and between 30–40 percent with respect to the negative emotional states of depression and anxiety .

Personality researchers have shown that at least some of these genetic effects may be due to the influence of specific personality traits on happiness. For example, the stable personality trait of extraversion is moderately correlated with positive affect (that is, the feeling of a positive emotion) and, to a lesser extent, with life satisfaction and negative affect (that is, the feeling of a negative emotion). People who are outgoing, assertive , and sociable tend to report more intense and more frequent positive emotions. This association is so robust that some psychologists have even suggested that the two constructs—extraversion and positive affect—are controlled by the same underlying physiological systems. Similarly, researchers have shown that the basic personality trait of neuroticism is moderately to strongly correlated with negative affect (and again, to a lesser extent, with life satisfaction and positive affect). This and other research on the links between happiness and traits (including factors such as optimism and self-esteem) show that personality plays a strong role in people’s subjective well-being.

There is a popular notion that the way that people view the world should influence their happiness. Some people always look for the silver lining in things, and presumably this positive outlook shapes the emotions that they feel. Psychologists, too, believe that the way that one thinks about the world is related to characteristic levels of happiness. A great deal of research has been conducted to examine the cognitive processes that affect a person’s subjective well-being.

For instance, many researchers examine the role that social comparison processes play in happiness. Initially, psychologists thought that people evaluated the conditions in their own lives by comparing them with the conditions in other people’s lives. Those individuals who are worse off than the people around them (in other words, people who experience upward comparisons) should experience unhappiness; those individuals who are better off than the people around them (in other words, people who experience downward comparisons) would experience happiness. Although this effect can occur, other research suggests that the processes are a bit more complicated. For one thing, both upward and downward comparisons can lead to either increases or decreases in happiness. People may look to someone who is better off and think either that they are performing terribly in comparison or that the other person serves as an example of an achievement toward which they can strive . Obviously, these two interpretations should lead to different effects on happiness. In addition, research shows that happy and unhappy people often choose different people for comparison. Happy people may choose comparison people who serve to maintain their happiness; unhappy people may choose comparisons that lead to less happiness. Thus, social comparison affects happiness in complicated ways.

Psychologists have also shown that goals and aspirations influence happiness. Not surprisingly, people who are rapidly approaching a goal tend to experience higher levels of happiness than people who are approaching a goal more slowly. But research also shows that simply having important goals is associated with greater happiness. Presumably, the sense of purpose that these goals create may protect people from the negative effects of temporary setbacks. Interestingly, the specific goals that people choose may also affect their happiness. Research suggests that choosing goals that are a challenge but not unachievable is important.

Although people tend to think about happiness as an outcome that they desire rather than as a tool that can be used to achieve additional goals, psychologists have begun to ask what function happiness serves. One of the best known theories, developed by American psychologist Barbara Fredrickson in 1998, posits that the function of happiness (or more precisely, the function of positive emotions) is to broaden one’s thinking and to build one’s resources. According to this theory, positive emotions lead people to think creatively and to try new things. As a result, happy people can develop new ways to approach the world, new interests, new social relationships, and even new physical skills. All of these effects lead to positive outcomes in people’s lives.

Psychologists have begun using experimental and longitudinal studies to determine whether positive affect plays a role in future positive outcomes. These studies provide evidence that happy people are more sociable and cooperative than unhappy people, are healthier than unhappy people, and earn more money than unhappy people. A number of studies have even shown that happy people live longer than unhappy people (and this is not just due to the fact that happy people tend to be healthy). Thus, although most people want to be happy because it feels good, this desired goal may lead to other positive outcomes in their lives.

A block party during Carnival in Belo Horizonte, Brazil; 11 February 2024. Photo by Washington Alves/Reuters

Learning to be happier

In order to help improve my students’ mental health, i offered a course on the science of happiness. it worked – but why.

by Bruce Hood   + BIO

In 2018, a tragic period enveloped the University of Bristol, when several students killed themselves related to work stress. Suicide is usually the ultimate culmination of a crisis in mental health, but these students weren’t alone in feeling extreme pressure: across the campus there was a pervasive sense that the general student body was not coping with the demands of higher education. My own tutee students, whom I met on a regular basis, were reporting poor mental health or asking for extensions because they were unable to meet deadlines that were stressing them out. They were overly obsessed with marks and other performance outcomes, and this impacted not only on them, but also on the teaching and support staff who were increasingly dealing with alleviating student anxiety. Students wanted more support that most felt was lacking and, in an effort to deal with the issue, the university had invested heavily, making more provision for mental health services. The problem with this strategy, however, is that by the time someone seeks out professional services, they are already at a crisis point. I felt compelled to do something.

At the time, Bristol University was described in the British press as a ‘toxic’ environment, but this was an unfair label as every higher education institution was, and still is, experiencing a similar mental health crisis. Even in the Ivy League universities in the United States, there was a problem, as I discovered when I became aware of a course on positive psychology that had become the most popular at Yale in the spring of 2018. On reading about the course, I was somewhat sceptical that simple interventions could make much difference until I learned that Yale’s ‘Psychology and the Good Life’ course was being delivered by a colleague of mine, Laurie Santos, who I knew would not associate herself with anything flaky.

That autumn term of 2018, I decided to try delivering a free lunchtime series of lectures, ‘The Science of Happiness’, based on the Yale course. Even though this pilot was not credit-bearing, more than 500 students gave up their Wednesday lunchtimes to attend. That was unusual as, in my experience, students rarely give up time or expend effort to undertake activities unless they are awarded credit or incentives. There would be 10 lectures, and everyone was requested to fill in self-report questionnaires assessing various mental health dimensions both before and after the course, to determine whether there had been any impact and, if so, how much.

The Science of Happiness had clearly piqued interest as indicated by the audience size, but I was still nervous. This was not my area of academic expertise and there was heightened sensitivity following the media attention over recent tragic events on campus. What were the students’ expectations? Talking about mental health seemed hazardous. Would I trigger adverse reactions simply by discussing these issues?

D espite my initial reservations, the final feedback after the course ended was overwhelmingly positive. That was gratifying but, as a scientist, I like hard evidence. What would the questionnaires tell us? The analysis of the before and after scores revealed that there had been a 10-15 per cent positive increase in mental wellbeing across the different measures of wellbeing, anxiety and loneliness. That may not sound much but it was the average, and a significant impact in the field of interventions. Who wouldn’t want to be 15 per cent happier, healthier or wealthier? I was no longer a sceptic; I was a convert. I would stop focusing on developmental psychology, my own area of research, and concentrate on making students happier. Even a 15 per cent improvement might lead to a degree of prevention that was better than dealing with a student who was already struggling.

The following year, we launched a credit-bearing course for first-year students who had room in their curriculum schedule to take an open unit, which has now been running for five years. These psychoeducational courses are not new and predate my efforts by at least a decade. But what makes the Bristol psychoeducational course unique (and I believe this is still the case) is that we persuaded the university to allow a credit-bearing course that had no graded examinations but was accredited based on engagement alone. Not only was I convinced by compelling arguments for why graded assessment is the wrong way to educate, but it would have been hypocritical of me to lecture about the failings of an education system based solely on assessment, and then give students an exam to determine if they had engaged. Rather, engagement required regular weekly attendance, meeting in peer-mentored small groups, but also undertaking positive psychology exercises and journaling about their experiences so that we could track progress. Again, to test the impact of the course, students were asked to fill in the various psychometric questionnaires to give us an insight to impact.

Meditation stops you thinking negative thoughts. Not exactly a scientific explanation

We now have five years’ worth of data and have published peer-reviewed scientific papers on evaluation of the course. As with the initial pilot, the consistent finding is that there is, on average, a 10-15 per cent significant increase in positive mental wellbeing over the duration of the course. The course improves mental wellbeing but there are limitations. Our most recent analysis over the longer term shows that the positive benefits we generate during the course, and the two months after, are lost within a year, returning to previous baseline scores, unless the students maintain some of the recommended activities. However, in those students who kept practising at least one of the positive psychology interventions (PPIs) such as journaling, meditation, exercise, expressing gratitude or any of the other evidence-based activities, they maintained their benefits up to two years later.

Why do interventions work and why do they stop working? As to the first question, there are countless self-help books promoting PPIs, but the level of explanation is either missing or tends to be circular. Acts of kindness work because they make you feel better. Meditation calms the mind and stops you thinking negative thoughts. Not exactly a scientific explanation or revelation. Even though I had largely put my experimental work with children on hold because of the demands of teaching such a large course, I was still intellectually intrigued by the same basic theoretical question that has always motivated my research. What is the mechanism underlying positive psychology?

T here are several plausible hypotheses out there from established academics in the field that explain some of the activities, but they lack a unifying thread that I thought must be operating across the board. I started considering the wide and diverse range of PPIs to see if there was any discernible pattern that might suggest underlying mechanisms. Two years ago, I had an insight and I think the answer can be found in the way we focus on our self.

In my role as a developmental psychologist, I see change and continuity everywhere in relation to human thought and behaviour. For some time, I have been fascinated by the concept of the self and how it emerges but must change over the course of a lifetime. I believe earlier childhood notions lay the foundation for later cognition which is why development is so critical to understanding adults. My most recent work concentrated on how ownership and possessions play major roles in our concept of self, and I was particularly interested in acts of sharing among children. Specifically, we had completed a set of studies demonstrating that, when children are instructed to talk about themselves, they thought about their own possessions differently and became less willing to share with others. Emphasising their self had made these children more selfish. This got me thinking about the role of self-focus in happiness.

The most pernicious aspect of self-focus is the tendency to keep comparing ourselves to others

Infants start off with an egocentric view of the world – a term and concept introduced by the psychologist Jean Piaget. Egocentric individuals tend to perceive the world from their own perspective, and many studies have shown that young children are egocentric in the way they see the world, act, talk, think and behave with others. Normal development requires adopting a more allocentric – or other-based perspective in order to be accepted. The sense of self changes from early ebullient egocentrism to an increasing awareness of one’s relative position in the social order. Children may become more other-focused but that also includes unfavourable comparisons. They increasingly become self-aware and concerned about what others think about them – a concern that transitions into a preoccupation when they enter adolescence that never really goes away. As for adults, like many features of the human mind, earlier ways of thinking are never entirely abandoned. This is why our self-focus can become a ‘curse’, as the psychologist Mark Leary describes , feeding the inner critic who is constantly negatively evaluating our position in life.

One reason that self-focus can become a curse is that we are ignorant of the biases our brains operate with that lead us to make wrong decisions and comparisons. When it comes to happy choices, we want something because we think it will make us happy, but our predictions are inaccurate. We think events will be more impactful than they turn out to be, and we fail to appreciate how fast we get used to things, both good and bad. This is called a failure of affective forecasting which is why the psychologist Dan Gilbert explains that our tendency to ‘stumble on happiness’ is because our emotional predictions are so way off. We don’t take into consideration how future circumstances will differ because we focus on just one element and we also forget how quickly we adapt to even the most pleasurable experiences. But the most pernicious aspect of self-focus is the tendency to keep comparing ourselves to others who seem to be leading happier lives. Social media is full of images of delicious plates of food, celebrity friends, exotic holidays, luxurious products, amazing parties and just about anything that qualifies as worthy of posting to bolster one’s status. Is it any wonder that the individuals who are the most prone to social comparison are the ones who feel the worst after viewing social media? As Gore Vidal once quipped: ‘Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little.’

If egocentric self-focus is problematic then maybe positive psychology works by altering our perspective to one that is more allocentric or ‘other-focused’? To do so is challenging because it is not easy to step out of ourselves under normal circumstances. Our stream of conscious awareness is from the first-person, or egocentric, perspective and, indeed, it is nigh-on-impossible to imagine an alternative version because our sensory systems, thought processes and representation of our selves are coded as such to enable us to interact within the world as coherent entities.

M any PPIs such as sharing, acts of kindness, gratitude letters or volunteering are clearly directed towards enriching the lives of others, but how can we explain the benefits of solitary practices where the self seems to be the focus of attention? The explanation lies with the self-representation circuitry in the brain known as the default mode network (DMN). One of the surprising discoveries from the early days of brain imaging is that, when we are not task-focused, rather than becoming inactive, the brain’s DMN goes into overdrive. Mind-wandering is commonly reported during bouts of DMN activity and, although that may be associated with positive daydreaming, we are also ruminating about unresolved problems that continue to concern us. According to one influential study that contacted people at random points of the day to ask them about what they were doing, what they were thinking and how they were feeling, people were more likely to be unhappy when their minds were wandering, which was about half of the waking day. Probably because they were focusing on their own predicaments.

If you focus on your problems, this can become difficult to control. There’s no point trying to stop yourself ruminating because the very act of trying not to think about a problem increases the likelihood that this becomes the very thought that occupies your mind. This was first described in an 1863 essay by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, when he observed the effect of trying not to think; he wrote: ‘Try to pose for yourself this task: not to think of a polar bear, and you will see that the cursed thing will come to mind every minute.’ My late colleague Dan Wegner would go on to study this phenomenon called ironic thought suppression , which he explained resulted from two mechanisms: the tendency to increase the strength of the representation of a thought by the act of trying to suppress it, and a corresponding increased vigilance to monitor when the thought comes to the fore in consciousness. Ironic thought suppression is one reason why it can be so difficult to fall asleep. This is why one of our recommended activities on our Science of Happiness course is to journal on a regular basis because this helps to process information in a much more controlled and objective way, rather than succumbing to the torment of automatic thinking.

Could the long-term benefits be something to do with altering the ego?

Other recommended activities that calibrate the level of self-focus also attenuate DMN activity. For example, mindfulness meditation advocates not trying to suppress spontaneous thoughts but rather deliberately turning attention to bodily sensations or external sounds. In this way, the spotlight of attention is directed away from the internal dialogue one is having with oneself. It is during such states that brain imaging studies reveal that various solitary interventions we recommend on the course – such as meditation or taking a walk in the country – are associated with lowered DMN activity and, correspondingly, less negative rumination. This is why achieving absorption or full immersion during optimal states of flow draws conscious awareness and attention out of egocentric preoccupation. To achieve states of flow, we recommend that students engage in activities that require a challenge that exceeds their skill level to an extent that they rise to the task, but do not feel overwhelmed by it. When individuals achieve flow states, their sense of self, and indeed time itself, appears to evaporate.

There are other more controversial ways to alter the egocentric self into one that is more allocentric. Currently, there is a growth in the use of psychedelics as a treatment for intractable depression and, so far, the initial findings from this emerging field are highly encouraging. One clinical study has shown that psychedelic-assisted therapy produced significant improvement in nearly three-quarters of patients who previously did not respond to conventional antidepressants. The primary mechanism of action of psychedelics is upon serotonin (5-HT 2A ) receptors within the DMN which, in turn, produce profound alterations of consciousness, including modulations in the sense of self, sensory perception and emotion. Could the long-term benefits be something to do with altering the ego? One of the most common reports from those who have undergone psychedelic-assisted therapy, aside from euphoria and vivid hallucinations, is a lasting, profound sense of connection to other people, the environment, nature and the cosmos. Across a variety of psychedelics, the sense of self becomes more interconnected, which is why a recent review concluded that there was consistent acute disruption in the resting state of the DMN.

I f chemically induced states of altered consciousness through psychedelics (which is currently still illegal in most places) is not your thing, then there are other ways to redress the balance between egocentrism and allocentrism. Engaging in group activities that generate synchronicity – such as rituals, dancing or singing in choirs – alter the sense of self and increase connection with others. But if group activities or psychedelic trips don’t work for you, then take a rocket trip. One of the most moving emotional and lasting experiences, known as ‘ the overview effect ’, occurs to those lucky individuals given the opportunity to view our planet from outer space. As the astronaut Edgar Mitchell described it, it creates an ‘explosion of awareness’ and an ‘overwhelming sense of oneness and connectedness … accompanied by an ecstasy … an epiphany.’

Back down on Earth, we can be happier when we simply acknowledge that we are all mortal, interconnected individuals who suffer personal losses and tragedies. No one’s life is perfect, and indeed you need to experience unhappiness in order recognise when things are going well. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus put it: ‘Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things.’ In other words, it’s not what happens to you, but how you respond, that matters, and that’s where positive psychology can make a difference – but only if you keep reminding yourself to get out of your own head.

Happiness hack

How to shift your egocentric self to one that is more allocentric using language

Consider a problem that is currently bothering you. A real problem – not a hypothetical one or a world problem beyond your control. Find something that makes you unhappy and then say to yourself: ‘I am worried about [whatever it is] because [whatever the reason may be] and this makes me upset.’ Now repeat the exercise but this time don’t use egocentric or first-person terms such as ‘I’ or ‘me’. Rather use your name and non-first-person language such as: ‘Bruce is worried about his [whatever it is] problem and this makes him upset.’

Speaking in non-first-person language should automatically transpose you out of the egocentric perspective to one that is other or allocentric, making the problem seem less.

Sleep and dreams

Spinning the night self

After years of insomnia, I threw off the effort to sleep and embraced the peculiar openness I found in the darkest hours

Annabel Abbs

History of ideas

Philosophy of the people

How two amateur schools pulled a generation of thinkers from the workers and teachers of the 19th-century American Midwest

Joseph M Keegin

Virtues and vices

Make it awkward!

Rather than being a cringey personal failing, awkwardness is a collective rupture – and a chance to rewrite the social script

Alexandra Plakias

Metaphysics

Desperate remedies

In order to make headway on knotty metaphysical problems, philosophers should look to the methods used by scientists

Political philosophy

Citizens and spinning wheels

For Indians to be truly free, Gandhi argued they must take up traditional crafts. Was it a quixotic hope or inspired solution?

Benjamin Studebaker

Psychiatry and psychotherapy

For those who hear voices, the ‘broken brain’ explanation is harmful. Psychiatry must embrace new meaning-making frameworks

Justin Garson

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Happiness — What Does Happiness Mean to You

What Does Happiness Mean to You

• Categories: Happiness

About this sample

Words: 483 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 483 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Embracing inner fulfillment, fostering connection and compassion, finding joy in the present, conclusion: a unique tapestry of happiness.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 578 words

2 pages / 860 words

2 pages / 923 words

1 pages / 502 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Happiness

To be a successful person in life so that can generate happiness on the work you have accomplished in your life it requires some efforts. I will do this by determining what I want to achieve in my life. I will make no changes of [...]

Theconcept of happiness has been studied and analyzed by philosophers, psychologists, and researchers. Happiness is a complex and multifaceted emotion that is influenced by various factors, such as individual experiences, [...]

Aristotle. 'Nicomachean Ethics.' Translated by Terence Irwin, Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.Tredwell, J. (2013). The Dark Figure of Crime: How to Research Unreported Crime. SAGE Publications Ltd.Walklate, S. (2011). Imagining [...]

Happiness is a universal goal, sought by individuals across cultures, demographics, and walks of life. While the definition of happiness can be subjective, encompassing a range of emotions and states of well-being, certain [...]

Happiness and money, both are an important role in human’s life. There is a question that many people will argue about the impact from them, which have more benefit to people, it also means which is more important for people [...]

In modern day, our version of finding happiness has become ambiguous. The connection between our inner lives and outer lives are complicated. The inner lives involve how we perceive the way we appear to us. The outer lives [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Definition Essay: Happiness

Happiness. It is not measurable, profitable, nor tradable. Yet, above all else in the world, it is what people seek. They want to have happiness, and want to know they have a lot of it. But happiness, like air or water, is a hard thing to grasp in one’s hand. It is intangible. So how does one know if they have it? Is it just a feeling? And if someone does not feel happy, how can they go about achieving that feeling?

Happiness is not measured by material wealth. A new car or television, a waterskiing boat or a three-level house does not equate to joyful feelings. They are status symbols, surely, and ones that make others assume a person is happy, but they do not guarantee a happy life. The clichéd phrase, “money can’t buy happiness,” is heard often… because it is true. People who have wealth can be unhappy, just as the poor can be living on cloud nine. Possessions can be gained and lost, and with that comes fear. And fear rarely leads to happiness.

So if it isn’t ‘stuff’ that achieves happiness, then what can? Well, goals can. People need to have a sense of purpose. It is no coincidence that Peanuts creator Charles Schultz died a week after ending his famous comic strip. Without a purpose, he was lost. But people that have a sense of purpose in their life often have a feeling of satisfaction about them. They sense they were put on this planet for a reason. To each person, this purpose can be different. Maybe they were meant to teach. Maybe they were meant to mother. Maybe they were meant to learn. And goals can be small things, like taking an extra moment each day to breathe. But having progress in life, a feeling of forward motion, can make people feel happy.

But taking that forward motion too far can be a bad thing. Success at the expense of everything else, for example, leads to the opposite of happiness. Life requires balance. And people that understand that there is a balance to work and play, strife and joy, are more in tune with the universe and, therefore, better able to achieve happiness. Life with a dose of humor is more pleasant. Comedians, compared to any other profession, live the longest because they understand that laughter adds the spice to life, and makes daily progress worth the minor tribulations.

So people can be happy if they have something to strive for and something to laugh about. But is that it? Can people with goals and a sense of humor still be unhappy? Well, yes. After all, the final key to happiness is the decision to actually be happy. Human nature can see negative energy anywhere. People can fixate on problems instead of solutions. So at the end of the day, “happiness depends upon ourselves.” (Aristotle). As Lincoln said, “Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.”

Being happy with who you are and what you have, is a decision that has to be consciously made. Goals can help lead to happiness. Finding laughter in life is important. But at the end of the day, a person needs to make a choice about happiness. They need to agree they want it, deserve it, and have it.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Social Philosophy and Policy
• > Volume 14 Issue 1
• > Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life

Article contents

Happiness and meaning: two aspects of the good life.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2009

The topic of self-interest raises large and intractable philosophical questions–most obviously, the question “In what does self-interest consist?” The concept, as opposed to the content of self-interest, however, seems clear enough. Self-interest is interest in one's own good. To act self-interestedly is to act on the motive of advancing one's own good. Whether what one does actually is in one's self-interest depends on whether it actually does advance, or at least, minimize the decline of, one's own good. Though it may be difficult to tell whether a person is motivated by self-interest in a particular instance, and difficult also to determine whether a given act or decision really is in one's self-interest, the meaning of the claims in question seems unproblematic.

My main concern in this essay is to make a point about the content of self-interest. Specifically I shall put forward the view that meaningfulness, in a sense I shall elaborate, is an important element of a good life. It follows, then, that it is part of an enlightened self-interest that one wants to secure meaning in one's life, or, at any rate, to allow and promote meaningful activity within it. Accepting this substantial conception of self-interest, however, carries with it a curious consequence: the concept of self-interest which formerly seemed so clear begins to grow fuzzy. Fortunately, it comes to seem less important as well.

In Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit distinguishes three sorts of theories about self-interest–hedonistic theories, preference theories, and what he calls “objective-list theories." Hedonistic theories hold that one's good is a matter of the felt quality of one's experiences.

Access options

1 The view described and defended here shows the influence of and my sympathy with the views of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill throughout. I cannot individuate my debts to them; they are pervasive.

2 Parfit , Derek , Reasons and Persons ( Oxford : Oxford University Press , 1984 ). Google Scholar

3 This point is made by David Wiggins in his brilliant but difficult essay “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life,” Proceedings of the British Academy , vol. 62 (1976).

4 Woody Allen appears to have a different view. His list of the things that make life worth living at the end of Manhattan includes, for example “the crabs at Sam Woo's,” which would seem to be on the level of chocolates. On the other hand, the crabs' appearance on the list may be taken to show that he regards the dish as an accomplishment meriting aesthetic appreciation, where such appreciation is a worthy activity in itself; in this respect, the crabs might be akin to other items on his list such as the second movement of the Jupiter Symphony , Louis Armstrong's recording of “Potatohead Blues,” and “those apples and pears of Cezanne.” Strictly speaking, the appreciation of great chocolate might also qualify as such an activity.

5 See Wiggins, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life,” p. 342.

6 This remark was made famous by John Stuart Mill, who quoted it in his essay on Bentham. See Robson , J. M. , ed., Collected Works of John Stuart Mill , vol. 10 ( Toronto : University of Toronto Press , 1969 ), p. 113 . Google Scholar

7 See Tolstoy , Leo , “My Confession,” in Klemke , E. D. , ed., The Meaning of Life ( New York : Oxford University Press , 1981 ). Google Scholar

8 Camus , Albert , The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays ( New York : Vintage Books , 1955 ). Google Scholar

9 Nagel , Thomas , “The Absurd,” in Nagel, Mortal Questions ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1979 ). Google Scholar

10 I discuss this in my “Meaningful Lives in a Meaningless World,” unpublished manuscript.

11 Taylor , Richard , Good and Evil ( New York : Macmillan , 1970 ). Google Scholar

12 See Feinberg , Joel , Freedom and Fulfillment ( Princeton : Princeton University Press , 1992 ), ch. 13. Google Scholar

13 Nozick , Robert makes a similar suggestion in The Examined Life ( New York : Simon and Schuster , 1989 ). Google Scholar In addition to wanting happiness, Nozick writes, “[w]e also want this emotion of happiness to befitting” (p. 112).

14 I explore this in “Meaningful Lives in a Meaningless World.”

15 The relevant scale of worth, however, will itself be a matter of contention. As my examples have probably made clear, there is no reason to identify the relevant kind of worth here with moral worth.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 14, Issue 1
• Susan Wolf (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001734

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Be Mindful@IÉSEG: an elective course to cultivate wellness, meaning, and happiness at 20

Pedagogy & Research

In September 2023, IÉSEG launched a new elective course, “Be Mindful@IÉSEG,” dedicated to student well-being. Designed for Bachelor’s students in the Grande École Progra m, the course was developed by Julie BAYLE-CORDIER, a professor at IÉSEG and Doctor in Strategic Management. She is also certified in mindfulness meditation with the MBSR (Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction ) program at Brown University in the United States.

BAYLE-CORDIER collaborated with the Academic Director of the Grande École Program and the Academic Affairs Department to address a need expressed by Bachelor cycle students. “ Studies speak for themselves… since the COVID crisis, anxiety and stress among young people have been on the rise worldwide. We wanted to develop a course to help our students better manage their stress and find a better work-life balance, ” explains Julie.

A course inspired by best practices

Drawing on her experience and research, Julie BAYLE-CORDIER drew inspiration from the latest scientific research on happiness, stress reduction, and mindfulness meditation for young adults. This new course integrates multiple mindfulness meditation techniques, as well as the latest academic research (including that of Harvard professor Tal Ben-Shahar) to offer an integrative approach that combines mind and body, allowing students to better balance their lives in all dimensions.

“I wanted to provide students with a space where they can not only learn to meditate but also explore essential themes such as stress management, addictions, interpersonal relationships, and the search for meaning in their professional and personal lives.” Julie BAYLE-CORDIER, Professor and Doctor in Strategic Management

This unique program aims to provide students with a comprehensive toolkit to navigate the challenges of student life while fostering lasting and profound happiness.

A unique and innovative structure

The 16-hour Be Mindful@IÉSEG course takes place weekly on both campuses, and is divided into six sessions of 2.5 hours each, spread over two months. Each session occurs in the Wellness Room on the Paris campus and in a specially designed room on the Lille campus , where students are encouraged to practice kindness. This course awards 2 ECTS credits, with a short essay required at the end of the semester.

Workshops cover a different theme during each session , ranging from reconnecting with the body to managing thoughts and emotions, to releasing our automatisms and addictions, and improving interpersonal relationships through compassionate communication. A mindful walk in nature is also on the program, highlighting the importance of reconnecting with nature to promote a happy life.

A positive impact on students

Students who have taken the course have reported a significant improvement in their stress management and have discovered a new way to interact with their peers. “ This course has given me a deeply enriching and different perspective from anything I’ve experienced in a traditional academic setting. I realized that, despite our differences, we all have the same issues and questions,” says one student.

The goal is now to make this elective available to as many students as possible.

“We started with a small experimental group last year, but we hope that this course will develop significantly on both the Paris and Lille campuses, starting in autumn 2024, to give many students the opportunity to find a better work-life balance. This course not only teaches how to better manage stress but also how to better know oneself in order to better deploy one’s intellectual and human potential.” Julie BAYLE-CORDIER

This mindfulness course is part of a broader initiative at IÉSEG, aimed at training leaders who are not only professionally competent but also personally fulfilled.

Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The most notable thing in life is to learn how to make it meaningful and valuable. An individual’s life seeks to fulfill two aspects, which are to discover the meaning of life and look for its value. I find meaning in my life when I help people that I encounter in my life. In most cases, I help those vulnerable to deal with their childhood memories, and at the same time, be of assistance to strangers and friends around me. However, I may end up neglecting my own life. I establish that happiness and success give meaning to life. In addition, I do not believe that life can be hard for some individuals. This is because the world has a place for everyone, thus no one should be a stranger in this world. I have devoted my efforts and time to helping the rejected using my little tricks and fantasy.

In essence, happiness and success give my life a certain meaning. I would like to prove that life is worth living. In essence, I maintain that one discovers him/herself through doing something important. I discover that life is not only about action, thoughts, wishes, or intentions, but deeds and, therefore, I spare my time and efforts to help people as I feel responsible for the others. I believe that meaning can arise from within life. This is evident when I begin to search for love after dedicating a lot of time to serving others. I realize that life can have meaning when I spend it with someone I love. In addition, I discover that as one is still alive, what he/she does gives meaning to his/her life.

Every day, there are a lot of accidents, some of which are murders, abortions, and other awful events. There are high rates of abortion and accidents that are occurring nowadays. This reflects the kind of values that we have adopted in our lives. The young ones are considered to have no proper values. In the United States, abortion is considered as a method of family planning and a way of contraception. To many, life is of more importance than no life at all. An individual will prefer life imprisonment rather than a death sentence. This clearly indicates that life is valuable and cannot be defined in terms of its opportunity.

According to Christian teachings and morality, every human being has a right to live. The Christian teachings are against abortion and murder. These are built on the fact that human life is so precious as every person has an immortal soul that cannot be evaluated. For Christians, a life without Christ is worthless. This means that life, when a person follows the Christian rules, is full of spirituality and thus meaning. It is clear that when an individual is saved, the value of his or her life changes to be sacred. Life of all human beings is under the control of a divine being. To Christians, a person’s life is of intrinsic value as compared to the life of animals.

Every person, whether young or adult, strong or weak, good or ill, has a right to live. The value of an individual life is of the essence to the individual and more so to the individual’s family. All people and society have an immense value of life as evidence of the sorrow they suffer when they lose one of their beloved ones. Even in times of suffering, an individual will prefer to continue living as opposed to dying. This is because everyone wants to live. Every individual should act as a custodian of the life of other beings. The government plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the life of an individual is well protected, and the required conditions are approved.

• Marilyn McCord Adams' Views on the Problem of Evil
• Philosophy, Literature, and Religion in Society
• Neglecting Strategic Intelligence
• The Word "Illuminati" Definition
• Philosophy. Is the Human Soul Immortal?
• Nonmaterialistic Values for Meaningful Life
• Believing Without Sufficient Evidence
• What Change Would You Like to See in the World?
• Buddha’s Speculation About Life After Death
• "The Fallacy of Success" by G. K. Chesterton
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, September 4). Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning. https://ivypanda.com/essays/happiness-and-success-as-a-life-meaning/

"Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning." IvyPanda , 4 Sept. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/happiness-and-success-as-a-life-meaning/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning'. 4 September.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning." September 4, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/happiness-and-success-as-a-life-meaning/.

1. IvyPanda . "Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning." September 4, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/happiness-and-success-as-a-life-meaning/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning." September 4, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/happiness-and-success-as-a-life-meaning/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Deeper Meaning of Taylor Swift’s Democratic Mic Drop

By Jennifer Weiner

Ms. Weiner, a novelist, writes frequently about gender and culture.

For a certain swath of America, the big news of Tuesday night’s presidential debate wasn’t made by Donald Trump or Kamala Harris but by Taylor Swift. As you’ve probably heard by now, mere moments after the candidates left the stage, she went on Instagram and, in a move many Democrats had prayed for, endorsed Ms. Harris. “She fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Ms. Swift wrote to her 283 million followers.

The endorsement was not a surprise, nor were the responses: Democrats exulted. Republicans fumed. Elon Musk chimed in with something deeply creepy .

Many pundits described Ms. Swift’s statement as a knockout punch — the cherry on the garbage sundae that was Mr. Trump’s Tuesday night. Ms. Swift, they said, had smartly waited until the former president was wounded, down on the floor whimpering, in order to deliver that final blow. “The timing on it is absolutely exquisite. The wording of it is flawless,” said the MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell.

But Ms. Swift’s decision to give her blessing so soon after the debate left others scratching their heads. Ms. Harris had a great night. Why not let her ride that wave? Wait a few days, let the news cycle run until Mr. Trump staggers back to his feet, then drop the endorsement for maximum impact.

Some looked back, wondering why Ms. Swift hadn’t come out for Ms. Harris in August, when Trump supporters used artificial intelligence to whomp up a fake image of Ms. Swift endorsing him, and he boosted the image as though it were real. Or at the Democratic National Convention, when rumors abounded that Ms. Swift or Beyoncé or perhaps Ms. Swift and Beyoncé would be the surprise guests?

Social media had theories.

Maybe Ms. Swift wanted to divert attention from friends such as Brittany Mahomes, who’s been under fire for liking (then seemingly unliking) a post by Mr. Trump that promised, among other things, to “Keep men OUT of women’s sports,” “Deport pro-Hamas radicals” and “build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country.” Maybe Ms. Swift wanted to lean into her relatability, so that we could imagine her on her couch, watching the debate just like us regular folk, listening carefully, taking notes and clicking “post” because she couldn’t wait.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .