Last week, I met up with a couple of mates in central Brisbane who have been trying to build up the Brisbane chapter of the RSA. We were discussing the historical profile of the organisation (which is old) and interestingly, the view that we all hold that championing ethical positions that were commonplace 100 years ago, wouldn’t be inappropriate for it. Given that globally, the RSA has something like twenty seven thousand fellows, it was heartening to hear that the CEO and other directors think the same.
As part of the general drive to make people more aware of the organisation and it’s purpose, I agreed to pen some outline thoughts for a talk to be given to a ‘Leadership Lounge’ (whatever that is) of senior business people in May. We agreed in principle that I could work with a title something like:
‘PROFIT ‘ used to be a dirty word – now ‘ETHICS’ is. What happened and is it important?
So I set about marshalling my thoughts on the subject, perusing the psychology book, amongst others, when I came upon a section entitled ‘Money and Happiness’. I’d like to quote a large section of it. I’m going to keep all the academic cross references in because it’s the right thing to do. Apologies if that makes this less readable.
‘Does money buy happiness? Many people presume there is some connection between wealth and well-being. From 1970 to 2002, the number of entering American collegians who consider it ‘very important or essential’ that they become ‘very well off financially’ rose from 39% to 73% (Sax, Astin, Korn & Mahoney, 2002). Are people in rich nations, indeed, happier? National wealth does predict national well-being up to a certain point, with diminishing returns thereafter (Myers 2000b). During the 1980’s, the comparatively affluent West Germans expressed more happiness than the very poor Bulgarians, but not more than the moderately affluent Irish. But national wealth rides along with confounding factors such as civil rights, literacy, and years of stable democracy.
Within any nation, are the rich people happier? Yes, again, especially in poor countries where the low income threatens basic human needs (Argyle, 1999). In affluent nations, the income-happiness correlation persists. But some analysts find it ‘surprisingly weak’ (Inglehart, 1990, p. 242). Moreover, the human capacity for adaptation has been made nearly equally available to the richest Americans, to lottery winners, to middle income people, and to those who have adapted to disabilities (Myers, 2000b)
Does economic growth boost happiness? The happiness boost that comes with increased money has a short half life. Over the past four decades, Americans’ per person income, expressed in constant dollars, has doubled (thanks to increased real wages into the 1970s, the doubling of women’s employment, and increasing non-wage income). Although income disparity has also increased, the rising economic tide has enabled today’s Americans to own twice as many cars per person, to eat out more than twice as often, and to mostly enjoy (unlike their 1960s counterparts) dish-washers, clothes dryers, and air conditioning. So, believing that it is ‘very important’ to be well off financially and having seen their affluence ratchet upward, are Americans now happier? Their self-reports suggest not. Moreover, before a late 1990s rebound, the third of a century after 1960 was marked not only by spiralling affluence but also by plummeting social well-being. The divorce rate doubled. Teen suicide tripled. Reported violent crime nearly quadrupled. The prison population quintupled. And the proportion of babies born to unmarried parents sextupled. The National Commission on Civic Renewal (1998) combined 22 such social trends to create its ‘Index of National Commission on Civic Health’, which plunged southward from 1960 to the early 1990s, even as affluence rose. I have called this conjunction of upward material prosperity and downward social recession The American Paradox (Myers 2000a).
The same conclusion – that economic growth has not produced increased personal or social well-being – is true of European countries and Japan, according to Richard Easterlin (1995). In Britain, for example, sharp increases in the percentages of households with cars, central heating, and telephones have not been accompanied by increased happiness.
Not only does wealth not boost well-being, those individuals who strive the hardest for wealth tend to have lower-than-average well-being – a finding that ‘comes through very strongly in every culture I’ve looked at’, reported Richard Ryan (quoted in Kohn, 1999; see Kasser and Ryan, 1996). His collaborator Tim Kasser, concludes from their studies that hose who instead strive for ‘intimacy, personal growth, and contribution to the community’ experience a higher quality of life (Kasser, 2000). Ryan and Kasser’s research echoes an earlier finding by H.W. Perkins: Among 800 college alumni surveyed, those with ‘Yuppie values’ – who preferred a high income and occupational success and prestige to having very close friends and close marriage – were twice as likely as their former classmates to describe themselves as ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ unhappy (Perkins, 1991)’ Myers, (2004) ‘Human Connections and the Good Life: Balancing Individuality and Community in Public Policy’ in Positive Psychology in Practice (2004).'
So you have to wonder – if the evidence is so reliable (and it does seem convincing – not least from ones’ own experience) why do we let the marketers steer society into a frenzy of consumption, non of which is going to make anyone happier in any meaningful way beyond the point of having enough of the basics to avoid REAL stress. My view is that we are so comatose to the facts that I presented above, and so over exposed to ‘misinformation’ from advertisers, that we are essentially a duped and ignorant (of these ethical issues) society.
Last week I had a couple of interviews…(I’ll tell you about them next week…don’t want to jinx it) and the on the second one, the employer was an hour late. I took myself off to the local library that I’d noticed was right next to the office. I walked in, and walked up to the first shelf in the reference section…where I saw a book called ‘Encyclopedia of Ethics’. I took one of the three volumes out and it opened on this page:
‘Consent may be questioned when a party is ignorant or mistaken about material facts. While requirement of disclosure are often low in what lawyers call ‘arms-length’ relationships, they are often higher where lay people must entrust important matters to hired specialists. In medicine and law for example, professionals typically have a fiduciary obligation, beyond the mere prohibition of fraud, to disclose risks associated with their services. Like small children in a strange world, the patient and the defendant may need instruction – reasoned discussion on the client’s interests as a collective good – if they are to choose wisely. (This assumes the lay consumers capacity for rational choice).
Hard PATERNALISM would impose controversial and often odious restrictions on bargained-for exchanges even where participants are competent, adequately informed, and have had ample opportunity to deliberate. Nonphysicians, for example, may not perform surgery even when patients choose the services voluntarily and in full understanding of the risks and benefits of available alternatives. Comparable bargains involving the sale of bodily organs, drugs, or sexual services, selling oneself into SLAVERY, and assistance in SUICIDE have been opposed on the heatedly contested grounds that the transactions are objectively bad for one or both parties.’
‘Encyclopedia of Ethics’
We know (more or less) that the pursuit of profit is objectively unjustifiable if we regard human happiness as a utilitarian aim. The question is, are we ever going to get this, or are we going to continue to let big business and it’s officers impoverish our societies, our lives and our sense of belonging?
Ok, that’s quite enough for now, I could go on, but I just needed to get that out.
Refs:
Argyle, M. (1999) Causes and correlations of happiness. In Kahenman, D, Deiner, E., & Scwartz, N. (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp.353-373). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Becker, L.C. and Becker, C.B. (Editors) (2001) ‘Encyclopedia of ethics’ – , London, Routledge. Pp
Easterlin, R. (1995) Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of economic behaviour and organisation, 27, 35 – 43.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 242
Kasser, T. & Ryan, R.M. (1996) Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280 – 287.
(Kasser, T. (2000) Two versions of the American Dream: Which goals and values make for a high quality of life. In E. Diener& D.R. Rahtz (Eds) Advances in quality of life: Theory and research (Vol 1, pp. 3 – 12) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Press.
Kohn, A. (1999, Feb 2nd) In pursuit of affluence, at a high price. New York Times. Available from www.nytimes.com
Myers D.G. (2000a) The American Paradox: Spiritual hunger in an age of plenty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Myers D.G. (2000b) The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American psychologist, 55, 56, - 67
Myers, D.G. (2004) ‘Human Connections and the Good Life: Balancing Individuality and Community in Public Policy’ in Positive Psychology in Practice (2004).
Perkins, H.W. (1991) Religious commitment, Yuppie values, and well-being in postcollegiate life. Review of Religious Research, 32, 244 – 251.
Sax, Astin, Korn & Mahoney, (2002) The American Freshman: National norms for fall (2002) Los Angeles: UCLA, Higher Educational Research Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment