Thread by @shrikanth_krish

One of the central ideas that animates Western civilization is the idea of the “Pursuit of Happiness” - mentioned explicitly by Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence

While “Pursuit of Happiness” is a seductive phrase, it is also very problematic.

In what respect?

Being someone rooted in Indian thought, I have always found this idea a tad troubling, notwithstanding its charm and specious appeal.

But I have never quite managed to articulate my opposition to it

A thought experiment I came across today in the work of British philosopher Derek Parfit got me thinking on how and why this idea is deeply flawed

Parfit’s experiment concerns “Population ethics” and how we assess the optimality for the world at large

Let me illustrate with an example. For purposes of simplicity, I will use per-capita income as a proxy for Happiness

Today we live in a world of 7 Bn people.

The per-capita income is roughly ~$18K

So that makes the total income : $126K Billion

Let’s call this Scenario A

Now let’s assume an alternative Scenario B where we bring in a billion new people into this world.

Population is now 8 Bn
The 7Bn who existed previously continue to make $18K
Let’s suppose the incremental 1Bn make $5K.
Total Income of the world : $126K B + $5K B = $131K Billion

Now any utilitarian would tell you that Scenario B is superior to Scenario A.

After all the 7Bn people who existed before are no worse than in Scenario A.

But you now also have 1Bn new people (who are relatively very poor) but who did not even exist in Scenario A.

Surely their existence adds to the “happiness” of the world

Now let’s modify Scenario B a little bit to get to Scenario C

Scenario C :

Population remains 8B
Total income also remains $131K B
But now let’s suppose the income is evenly distributed among the original 7B and the incremental 1B

So Per-capita income : $131K B / 8B = $16,375

While the 7B who exist today may crib a little bit at seeing their incomes reduced slightly, most moral philosophers would aver that Scenario C is equivalent to Scenario B if not better. And definitely better than A

After all the 7Bn people are only marginally worse off than before. While the incremental 1B are now leading great lives. Lives which did not even exist in Scenario A.

But now let’s take this line of argument to its logical conclusion with Scenario D

Let’s suppose the population is now 20 Billion.
Wealth remains $131K Billion.
Per-capita income is uniform and works out to be - $6,550

What do you make of it?

Mathematically Scenario D is every bit as good as Scenario B and C.
Surely it must be better than A.

But now everyone is up in arms. Hey…our incomes are being reduced from $18K to a paltry $6,550.

I counter - Hey..we now have 13B new people who did not even exist in Scenario A. We are tripling the number of individuals on earth. Surely that’s a HUGE win

But the 7Billion people scream

I care a hoot for those 13B hypothetical new individuals. Not in my backyard! No sir!

To which the moral philosopher can counter with Scenario E

If per-capita happiness is what you care for -

Why don’t we eliminate off 3Billion of you (who don’t work too hard)

We can still make $131K B worth income with just 4B people.
Per-capita income shoots up to $32,750!

Would there be any takers for Scenario E?

Definitely not, among the 3B people who face an existential threat.

This thought experiment brings up an important dilemma -

How do we assess the greater common good.

If happiness is what matters, is there any optimal way to weigh one’s own happiness against that of the future generations, whose existence depends on our free will to procreate?

While I can have a better standard of living by not having children at all, would that be the ethical choice?

If the whole world chose not to have pesky children for the next 50-60 years, the human race will be extinct in a century!’

This illustrates why it is morally problematic to regard “Happiness” as an end to trump all ends.

Modernity and Enlightenment thought have long held the secularization of human life and glorification of human reason on a pedestal

But these very tendencies of modernity tend to vitiate our moral bearings and make us focus exclusively on the short term

A critique of this mode of thinking is best expressed in the notion of Dharma in Indian thought that downplays mere “comfort” but instead promotes those modes of behavior and thinking that help sustain civilization in the very long run

The very word “Dharma’ stems from the root “Dhr” which means “to hold / support”

This is diametrically opposite to Jeffersonian thought that regards individual liberty and individual happiness as the highest goals, while downplaying the more traditional Burkean notions of civilization being a contract between the “living, the dead and the unborn”

While the “Pursuit of happiness” edifice remains deeply seductive both in the West and to civilizations outside, it is time to take a step back and examine the internal contradictions in this edifice that make it vulnerable to stagnation or decline in the very long run