| |
|
Happiness under a microscope
If, for centuries, the search for happiness was mainly the object of philosophical debate, today science and politics, too, have begun to ask questions about the nature of it.
From being an elite value, with the American Constitution happiness became a universal right. Only to then be transformed into an obligation of the American Dream. Lord Richard Layard, the British economist and political defender of happiness, maintains that in fact, when measuring happiness only 15% of it derives from economic factors. Other, less quantifiable, factors play a part, such as security, stability, full employment, a functioning health service and uncomplicated personal relationships. So it would seem that good divorce or housing legislation is more important than lowering the tax burden.
World famous scientists have also looked into the question of happiness. The geneticist Luca Sforza-Cavalli and his son Francesco conducted a decidedly theoretical investigation in which happiness is treated as an actual science, albeit a very individual science that requires a work finalised on ourselves. For sure, man is seemingly incapable of rendering other people happy. A person can contribute to building the conditions, forcing the circumstances, favouring events, but is never directly responsible for someone else’s happiness.
The scholars B.Frey and A. Stutzer have also concerned themselves with studying the spread of happiness. Their work highlights the fact that whoever defines himself as a happy person will be considered happy by others.
(16/06/2006)
print
|
|
|
|
|
