Does high standard of living bring happiness?
In many countries, modern life has improved people’s standard of living, but people seem nevertheless generally not more happy with their lives.
Published: 08th January 2020 06:30 AM |
Express News Service
CHENNAI: In many countries, modern life has improved people’s standard of living, but people seem nevertheless generally not more happy with their lives. This can be regarded as a surprise with the level of prosperity at a historic high. There is no doubt in it that every human being has the right to live and, therefore, the right to find the wherewithal to feed, to clothe and to house himself as well as his dependents.
Besides these three, one has to fulfil some other needs as well, the aim being to avoid pain and to have a reasonably comfortable life. But the trouble starts when one adopts that economic philosophy which states that multiplication and fulfilment of wants leads to higher standard of living and greater happiness, and one, then sets to accumulate whatever and as much as one can by fair as well as foul means. This economic philosophy is basically erroneous and self-defeating and is the cause of many social, economic, political and moral maladies of our times.
To begin, happiness is hard to define as different people may have very different concepts of happiness, but directly correlating standard of living with happiness is likely oversimplifying their relationship. While good life conditions certainly contribute to happiness, people in poor countries frequently express a surprisingly high levels of happiness in opinion polls. For some people, fulfilling work and social relationships probably add more to happiness than being able to afford luxury goods. We should also understand one thing that happiness is not the same as pleasure. Happiness depends more on the mental state of a person than on the fulfilment of desires and the gratification of senses.
So, there may be a man whose hands are full but whose soul is empty. Also, it would be wrong to measure one’s standard of living on scale of luxury goods. It would also be wrong to dissociate this term from the intellectual, moral and cultural aspects of a person. There may, for instance, be a person with high moral character who leads a life of voluntary non-possession or minimum possessions. He may be an intellectual of a high order, contented in mind and refined in the cultural sense.
Hence, it would be wrong to say that his ‘standard of living is not high’. We should remember that just as food sustains the body so does the mind find sustenance in happiness. So, the saying goes: there is no food as good as happiness. And, to be happy, you have to be contented. Just as, for bodily well-being, man seeks food, so should he maintain the state of contentment to ensure happiness of mind.
As Alfred Nobel rightly said that ‘Contentment is the only real wealth’, we should therefore not run after securing another kind of wealth to lose the wealth of contentment because contentment is as good as a means of happiness as wealth is considered to be. Hence, it can safely be concluded that, beyond a limit, the multiplication of wants and their satisfaction does not promote happiness and certainly not in that proportion.
In many countries, modern life has improved people’s standard of living, but people seem nevertheless generally not more happy with their lives.
Published: 08th January 2020 06:30 AM |
Express News Service
CHENNAI: In many countries, modern life has improved people’s standard of living, but people seem nevertheless generally not more happy with their lives. This can be regarded as a surprise with the level of prosperity at a historic high. There is no doubt in it that every human being has the right to live and, therefore, the right to find the wherewithal to feed, to clothe and to house himself as well as his dependents.
Besides these three, one has to fulfil some other needs as well, the aim being to avoid pain and to have a reasonably comfortable life. But the trouble starts when one adopts that economic philosophy which states that multiplication and fulfilment of wants leads to higher standard of living and greater happiness, and one, then sets to accumulate whatever and as much as one can by fair as well as foul means. This economic philosophy is basically erroneous and self-defeating and is the cause of many social, economic, political and moral maladies of our times.
To begin, happiness is hard to define as different people may have very different concepts of happiness, but directly correlating standard of living with happiness is likely oversimplifying their relationship. While good life conditions certainly contribute to happiness, people in poor countries frequently express a surprisingly high levels of happiness in opinion polls. For some people, fulfilling work and social relationships probably add more to happiness than being able to afford luxury goods. We should also understand one thing that happiness is not the same as pleasure. Happiness depends more on the mental state of a person than on the fulfilment of desires and the gratification of senses.
So, there may be a man whose hands are full but whose soul is empty. Also, it would be wrong to measure one’s standard of living on scale of luxury goods. It would also be wrong to dissociate this term from the intellectual, moral and cultural aspects of a person. There may, for instance, be a person with high moral character who leads a life of voluntary non-possession or minimum possessions. He may be an intellectual of a high order, contented in mind and refined in the cultural sense.
Hence, it would be wrong to say that his ‘standard of living is not high’. We should remember that just as food sustains the body so does the mind find sustenance in happiness. So, the saying goes: there is no food as good as happiness. And, to be happy, you have to be contented. Just as, for bodily well-being, man seeks food, so should he maintain the state of contentment to ensure happiness of mind.
As Alfred Nobel rightly said that ‘Contentment is the only real wealth’, we should therefore not run after securing another kind of wealth to lose the wealth of contentment because contentment is as good as a means of happiness as wealth is considered to be. Hence, it can safely be concluded that, beyond a limit, the multiplication of wants and their satisfaction does not promote happiness and certainly not in that proportion.
No comments:
Post a Comment