December 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad

« More on MMP in New Zealand | Main | Bernanke, the Fed and the Monetary Theory of the Trade Cycle »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

See
http://www.techcentralstation.com/051403D.html
and
http://www.techcentralstation.be/040403M.html
and
http://www.techcentralstation.com/080504C.html

Some overlap there with your paper. Enjoyed your paper. I thought that my "happiness police" paper has some things that might strengthen your argument

Interesting paper, but one point. It is clear that happiness can be a subjective concept, but you fail to provide any evidence that it does not have a intersubjective dimension. It could well be that when people do refer to happiness, they are largely talking about the same thing. It seems that you assert rather than argue for your conclusion here.

Robert McHenry - Are We All Happy Yet?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/022805B.html

"Layard appeals to modern neuroscience to bolster his claim that we are now at last in position to understand and measure happiness, hence to design steps to maximize it. He notes some experiments with brain scans, in which "good" feelings and "bad" feelings seem to be localized in certain areas. He then jumps directly to the political priorities and policies that, for him, are implied by this discovery. But if happiness is to be society's chief goal, why not skip over all that messy and uncertain business? Why not just implant electrodes in that good-feeling area and hand the patient a little button to push as often as he likes? Indeed, let's all have one, and maybe we can synchronize our button-pushing. How do you suppose the happiness survey would turn out then? Aldous Huxley's soma pills seem positively primitive, not to mention slow acting, by comparison."
_____________


Can't buy it?, http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3555887
_____________

"The author (Richard Layard) singles out income inequality as a psychic wound uniquely worthy of state intervention. But if raising the level of happiness is to be the chief aim of government policy, as he argues it should, where then is the call to make divorce harder, given the pain that he says broken homes inflict on children? Further, where is his desire to compel the worship of a higher being, also on his list as a source of happiness? Thankfully, both are absent, but he never mentions the obvious reason for why they are: namely, that most people value freedom as a greater good than enforced happiness. The pursuit of happiness, Lord Layard's book will convince most people, is a private matter."
________________


The Scientist's Pursuit of Happiness
Johan Norberg

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books