Abstract
Despite recent intense interest, happiness studies have been impeded by some conceptual and methodological problems, including viewing happiness (well-being/welfare) as different over different persons, as relative, multi-dimensional, non-cardinally measurable, interpersonally non-comparable and using non-cardinal and interpersonally non-comparable methods of happiness measurement. Using the evolutionary biology of happiness, this paper argues that happiness is absolute, universal, and uni-dimensional and is also cardinally measurable and interpersonally comparable. This is needed to make choices motivated by reward (pleasure) and punishment (pain) consistent with fitness maximization. However, happiness indices obtained by virtually all existing methods of happiness measurement are largely non-cardinal and non-comparable, making the use of averaging in group happiness indices of dubious philosophical validity. A method of measuring happiness to give cardinal and interpersonally comparable indices is discussed. These may contribute towards the more scientific study of happiness that is based on sounder methodological grounds as well as yielding more useful results.
Highlights
Studies on happiness, life satisfaction, or subjective well-being (SWB) have traditionally been undertaken mainly by psychologists and sociologists
This paper argues that these impediments could be at least partially removed by learning from evolutionary biology and by using a more comparable method of measurement
This paper argues that the basic principles of evolutionary biology (Section 2) may be used to dispel or at least question the above-mentioned damaging views or beliefs on the non-universality, multi-dimensionality, relativity, non-cardinality and interpersonal noncomparability of happiness (Section 3)
Summary
Life satisfaction, or subjective well-being (SWB) have traditionally been undertaken mainly by psychologists and sociologists. Even if happiness is intrinsically cardinal as assumed in this paragraph, the method of using the 0–10 range does not give in general a fully cardinal index, though it probably gives more information than a purely ordinal ranking This partially cardinal nature of the commonly used measure does not seem to have been explored in the literature (e.g., Kristoffersen, 2010; Stevens, 1975), though (Ng, 2008) tries to capture the likely relationship between actual net happiness and reports restricted to 0–10 by an arc-tangent curve. These may contribute towards the more scientific study of happiness that is based on sounder methodological grounds
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
