Hedonistic Theories in "The Pursuit of Unhappiness" by Daniel Haybron

Introduction

In The Pursuit of Unhappiness by Daniel Haybron, he critiqued hedonistic theories on the grounds that pleasure is “not plausibly identifiable with happiness” and deemed this as the lack of “descriptive adequacy” (Haybron, p.57). Borrowing the notion of descriptive adequacy from philosopher L. W. Sumner , Haybron explained descriptive adequacy as providing a close fit to our usual intuitions of happiness while refraining from including too many intuitions which may unnecessarily over-complicate the theory . To resolve the inadequacies of the hedonistic account of happiness, Haybron responded with his own emotional state theory to adequately capture the nature of happiness. However, Haybron’s theory neglected cultural factors and habitual behaviours that can significantly affect our emotional conditions (Schimmick, Oishi & Diener, 2002). Even so, although there were several factors he may not have considered, I will defend that Haybron’s emotional state theory provided constructive foundations to understand happiness on various levels. I will defend his theory by evaluating his response of the emotional state theory to his criticisms of hedonism. By extension of this analysis, the aim of this paper is to emphasise that different intuitions of happiness can only be accounted for by the individual and not any theory no matter how comprehensive it is. Nonetheless, the framework Haybron provided is a good starting point for us to understand happiness.

Before we present the main arguments, we should clarify that the descriptive adequacy Haybron established can be divided into two main arms - firstly, the exclusion of “superficial pleasures that fail to implicate our emotional conditions” and secondly, the “expansiveness” of this theory to “[incorporate] our emotional conditions in their entirety” (Haybron, p.110). I will acknowledge an exception of his approach in the first arm while presenting cultural factors Haybron did not consider in the second arm. However, on the whole, I will maintain that Haybron’s theory serves well as a comprehensive foundation to evaluate happiness. I will do so by analysing the overarching principle of emotional state theory of happiness as psychic affirmation and its proposed three dimensions of happiness, as well as their necessary sequence.2. Exclusion of Superficial PleasuresWhile Haybron argued that superficial pleasures should be excluded as they do not affect our emotional condition, I acknowledge that there are some exceptions Haybron may not have thoroughly considered. In order to analyse this, we shall look at happiness as “psychic affirmation” of one’s emotional state (Haybron p. 111). When one has a generally positive aggregate of moods and emotions, happiness is derived by affirming that emotional condition psychologically (Haybron, p.111).

In turn, the emotional condition responds to life events that are significant enough that they are not “mere pleasures” (Haybron, p.108). Although included in hedonism, Haybron’s theory excluded “mere pleasures”. This is because at face value, these superficial pleasures do not seem to have any significant deeper meaning that can affect one’s emotional condition and therefore, happiness (Haybron, p.108). While I concede superficial pleasures can affect one’s emotional condition in the case of habitual behaviours, Haybron’s theory still provides a constructive foundation to understand happiness. An exception that Haybron may not have considered is that unconscious actions from habits may seem superficial but have a deeper meaning than one may notice. Take for example an elderly woman grabbing her morning coffee at her neighbourhood coffeeshop. At face value, it may seem like a superficial pleasure and thus, unimpactful. But explored deeper, her cultivated habit of having a morning coffee since her younger, carefree days attaches this activity with enough meaning to have a noticeable change in her emotional condition should the coffeeshop close one day. Furthermore, some studies suggest these habitual sources of happiness are more sustainable than significant life events. To be clear, superficial pleasures can affect one’s emotional condition when one subconsciously interprets and recognises its significance. In this specific instance, this exclusion suggests that Haybron’s theory does not frame specific intuitions of happiness in a comprehensive framework. However, for the most part, there are many other excluded superficial pleasures, such as eating ice cream or finding money on the floor, that do not affect our emotional condition. Instead, it may convolute the constructive framework of Haybron’s theory. On the whole, Haybron’s streamlining of superficial pleasures is mostly comprehensive in providing a general framework to understand happiness despite specific exceptions.

Inclusivity of the Entire Emotion Condition

Previously, we have established that excluding superficial pleasures generally accounts for our usual intuitions of happiness. Moving forward, we shall evaluate if including the entire emotional condition concisely captures our usual intuitions of happiness. As Haybron claimed “all emotional states instantiate one or more of three basic modes of affirmative or negative response.” (Haybron, p.111), we shall explore the three modes of happiness in greater detail. Specifically, endorsement manifests in outwardly joy but is rather superficial and unsustainable (Haybron, p.113), engagement involves enthusiastically pursuing purposeful endeavours (Haybron, p.114) while attunement comprises of being at ease with one’s circumstances and naturally letting down one’s defences (Haybron, p.116). Correspondingly, Haybron established a sequence in which attunement served as the conditions for happiness. With attunement established, engagement can then be achieved, followed by endorsement (Haybron, p.121). I believe whether including the entire emotional condition is reflective of our usual intuitions of happiness will hinge on two things - how comprehensive Haybron’s theory is in highlighting the attainment of happiness and the universality of his theory.

Comprehensiveness of Haybron’s Theory

Firstly, I will defend that Haybron’s inclusion of the entire emotional condition comprehensively responds to the inadequacies of hedonism. Similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs , Haybron explained the “conditions”, “pursuit” and the “meeting of goals” through attunement, engagement and endorsement respectively. This exhaustive sequence of stages creates an order and structure to comprehensively evaluate the elusive nature of achieving happiness. Take for example a fashion designer who has always seen fashion as a constant source of comfort. This indicates he is attuned to his fashion career. He has been diligently conceptualising an outfit collection which then shows he is engaged with his career. More significantly, his sense of endorsement would be more grounded and substantiated when receiving applause for his outfits on the runway as compared to the more transient sense of endorsement of a young girl merely receiving praise for wearing a nice dress. By concretely and extensively framing the achievement of happiness on various levels, Haybron responds appropriately to the unrepresentative, one-dimensional structure that frames happiness in hedonism. Therefore, it is clear that Haybron’s emotional state theory is significantly more comprehensive than hedonism.

Universality of Haybron’s Theory

Following that, by considering how relatively universal Haybron’s theory is, I will defend his proposed three modes of happiness in terms of breadth but critically analyse the lack of adaptability in his theory. If a theory is able to adequately frame our most common intuitions of happiness, it should be able to be applied universally. To evaluate this, universality can be seen as how accurate this theory is in comparing happiness across various cultures. For the purpose of comparison, Haybron’s three modes of happiness are based on three scales, namely the “joy-sadness” (Haybron, p.113), “exuberance-depression” (Haybron, p.114) and “tranquillity-anxiety” (Haybron, p.116) axes which represent the endorsement, engagement and attunement modes of happiness respectively. These three scales will be compared against other theories that similarly use scales as a tool for evaluating levels of happiness.Firstly, in terms of breadth, I believe Haybron’s three scales are able to adequately capture our usual intuitions of happiness, without including too much such that it unnecessarily over-complicates the theory. In comparison, single scale theories like hedonism are not able to accurately represent the inherent diversity and depth of happiness. For example, a highly ambitious, persevering individual who has gone through tough times to achieve great success may have similarly high magnitudes in positive and negative affects, therefore scoring near zero. If we were to compare this person to another who has trudged on decently in life without much change in mood and similarly scoring zero, it is clear that similar scores in a single-scale theory are not fully representative of the intensities and complexity of happiness.When extended to three multi-dimensional scales in Haybron’s theory, there is sufficient depth that is accounted for. Each level of happiness allows for analyses of different manifestations of happiness, namely joy, exuberance and tranquillity, that are absent in single-scale theories.

As Haybron expressed, our lives are “emotionally rich, and do not reduce to their experiential surfaces” (Haybron, p.107-108). In other words, emotions are diverse and complex and happiness can be both be found through our experiences such as endorsement or engagement and deeper within our levels of subconsciousness too such as attunement. For example, Japan is amongst the countries with the highest suicide rates even though the stability and high levels of development would suggest otherwise . By using Haybron’s three scales, we are able to reconcile that this contradictory observation is perhaps because of a lack of attunement to life due to isolation and the lack of a sense of belonging despite high levels of wealth and stability. The applicability of Haybron’s emotional state theory to account for the complexity of happiness suggests its comprehensive framework is more universal than single-scale theories. While some readers may suggest Haybron’s three scales may give similar scores to individuals with differing levels of happiness as elaborated with hedonism, having adequately more scales reduces this probability of error should it happen in different modes of happiness. However, this line of argument that the more scales a theory utilises, the more comprehensive it is, may not always be the best case. In subjective well-being, its excessive breadth raises conflicts as different scales have different desirability which may cloud the nature of happiness even further. Most notably, Singapore has come in both first and last for happiness surveys that were a mere five years apart. This incongruity highlights the lack of a common consensus and structure in subjective well-being and the fact that the diversity and flexibility of a theory may instead over-complicate our understanding of happiness.

Consequently, this in turn highlights that Haybron’s emotional state theory was concise in accounting for the complexity of the emotional condition.Consequently, by coming between the two extremes in this spectrum, I believe Haybron’s emotional state theory can be seen to be adequately representative of the emotional condition as compared to hedonistic theories. Yet, it is relatively practical by offering a clear, focused set of scales that ultimately aims to streamline our usual intuitions of happiness such that everyone can appreciate this theory, as compared to subjective well-being. However, precisely because there is a spectrum it may not be clear if its position in this spectrum is the optimal one. Resultantly, this proposed structure may not hold under all circumstances. At times, the universality that seemed to strengthen Haybron’s emotional state theory may instead seem imposed and inflexible. This could threaten the constructive foundations it had set out to achieve.

Cultural Factors Influencing The Emotional ConditionWhile Haybron responded to hedonism by including the entirety of the emotional condition, he may have opined that the emotional condition was independent of extrinsic influences due to his focus on the “psyche” (Haybron, p.111). However, in an inter-connected, relationship-abundant reality, I believe this is not always the case. More broadly, as Haybron does not fully account for the social aspect of the psychological condition, his theory does not seem to be adaptable enough to include the entire emotional condition. As much as the psychological condition exists within the individual, cultural values could greatly affect an individual’s psychological state. Haybron acknowledged that his theory is “a bit oversimplified” implying that the proposed order may not be applicable under all situations (Haybron, p.121). For example, workplace stress indicates that one is not attuned by the lack of comfort with one’s circumstances but to some extent, engagement with piles of work may suit an individual’s preferred working style instead. While Haybron points this “failure of attunement” to the “interdependence of three modes” (Haybron, p.121), I believe this could be better explained by considering a larger social context. Essentially, while Haybron’s theory was sufficiently broad, I concede that it failed to be sufficiently adaptable to different cultural contexts and thus, unrepresentative in its framework.

The “failure of attunement” in Haybron’s theory (Haybron, p.121) could be attributed to the use of intrinsic psychological indicators of one’s condition of happiness. Although the theory is thoroughly comprehensive individually, it falls short of describing how much external factors affect the psychological state. Notably, while most Latin Americans are subjected to a life riddled with migration problems, they have adapted well to these problems and are able to celebrate cheerfulness despite a lack of social stability. This is due to the presence of a collectivistic mindset, as compared to an individualistic mindset which may result in higher depression rates but greater success as seen in most East Asian cultures. It is apparent that the desirability of different values in a culture will result in differing intuitions of happiness. Attunement in both cases was not achieved, yet happiness in both cases was achieved. A theory of happiness should include different approaches to realize happiness if happiness was achieved in the end either way. However, I believe the lack of reconciliation between these different approaches to happiness extends beyond the scope of what Haybron’s theory aims to achieve – a constructive foundation for our general approach to understand happiness. The specificity of each culture should be factored in on a case-by-case basis as no theory can be that versatile. Therefore, while I concede that Haybron did not consider cultural factors in his theory, it may not have been aligned with the initial purpose of his theory.

Conclusion

Ultimately, while Haybron’s emotional state theory may not have considered some intuitions of happiness, the theory provides constructive foundations for our general approach to understand happiness. The theory is able to sufficiently balance a streamlined set of scales of happiness that usually affects our emotional conditions while adequately encapsulating the diversity and complexity of happiness on various levels. As a response to the inadequacies of hedonism, the emotional state theory adequately sifts out irrelevant pleasures while capturing happiness on multiple levels to achieve a theory of happiness that seems plausibly identifiable with the common man. This allows us as individuals of different cultures and societies to use this framework as a foundation to evaluate our emotional conditions more comprehensively. More significantly, no theory can be a “one-size-fits-all”. Just like the fashion designer in our previous example - he cannot possibly please everyone with his outfits because we all have different tastes due to various factors such as cultural values that will uniquely shape our psychological tendencies. He can only hope that his outfits are as close of a fit to what people really think of fashion, just as how Haybron does so with the elusive nature of happiness.