The problems with happiness as a goal (part 2)

In part 1, I clarified the definition of hedonism and mentioned two problems with pursuing happiness (as I define it) as a goal: (1) some positive emotions compete with one another, and (2) negative emotions are there for a reason.

Maximizing or minimizing any emotion or set of emotions seems arbitrary and kind of missing the point. Arbitrary because why pick joy over curiosity or curiosity over joy? And missing the point because all emotions have a biological purpose -- to motivate us to learn or explore; to arm us against the threat of danger; to signal that things are going well or not going well. Viewed this way, emotions are not an end but a means to an end. Here is the important point: Emotions are better viewed as signals than as outcomes. (Like money, I’d add.)

Serious complications can result from treating emotions as outcomes. Take for example the gratitude journal, whose purpose is to increase feelings of gratitude and thereby a general rise in positive affect. A gratitude journal can be effective in achieving this goal, no doubt, but its effectiveness depends heavily on context. There was a study (which I read about in NurtureShock) that revealed that for most kids gratitude journals have unintended negative consequences. Most kids have a strong need to feel independent, and gratitude journals, by forcing these kids to notice how dependent they are on their parents, made them feel more gracious, yes, but also led to a slew of negative emotions. Pursuing happiness as a goal gets mighty complicated when by pursuing and achieving a positive emotion you become, on the whole, less happy.

The important point is this: Emotions act independently. By making yourself more gracious or more curious you are not necessarily providing yourself with a general rise in positive emotions (or fall in negative ones).

In my estimation, all of our emotions have a purpose, and if they have a unifying purpose it is something like to facilitate the survival of our genes. Assuming it's true that emotions are tools to ensure our (genes') survival, why, then, should anyone attempt to control their emotions?

Actually I think there is good reason to (try to) control our emotions in some contexts, and in the next post I will do a brief interlude on why I think so as well as how best to do it.

I will conclude this post by trying to condense and unify what I’ve said so far: Each individual emotion has an evolutionary role, acting as a tool for our (genes’) survival, and each emotion acts independently from the others. For these reasons, emotions are best viewed as part of an ancient (and imperfect, as I’ll discuss in the next post) feedback system to inform our behavior rather than a set of outcomes to be achieved as the result of our behavior. A subtle difference, maybe, but it has important implications.