The Happiness Principle

1. Within the body of “happiness literature”, by way of the architectural principle, we might say there exists something that acts as an internal foundation, either in a positive or negative manner. We are referring to a principle that could be called “happiness principle”.

It is interesting to note that although the happiness principle operates in the same line as the different conceptions of happiness, it has never been identified under this label. Consequently, the architectural foundation by virtue of which the different types of happiness literature are grouped is placed under the label “happiness principle”.

Identified and coined in this way, we cover the obligatory procedure of “re-flection” on its condition and “architectural” function.

2. We can distinguish two formulations of the happiness principle. Indeed, we might refer to a first weak formulation of the happiness principle.

The “Happiness Principle” can be understood, in this sense, as an abbreviation of the “Weak Happiness Principle.”

Conversely, we will single out the strong happiness principle, which we will refer to as “happiness assumption.”

Thus, “Weak Happiness Principle” and “Happiness Assumption” are the two formulations of the Happiness Principle. We find several versions of both the happiness principle and the happiness assumption.

The canonical example of the happiness principle is formulated by Seneca in his De vita beata: “All men, brother Gallio, want to live happily.”

Equally, the happiness assumption in its canonical version is formulated in Fichte's Die Anweisung zum Seligen Leben (1806), through the phrase “Life is itself happiness”. The extended version of this could be: “All men are happy”.

As we have already seen, neither the weak nor the strong happiness principle has been identified as a formulation of the happiness principle. So much so, that not even Nietzsche would have noticed the existence of such a principle.

Despite the fact that the happiness assumption is very frequently present in Catholic theological literature on happiness (in its Thomistic line), or in the United States of America's 1776 Declaration of Independence, this has not given rise to a reflection on the principle itself. In the modern day, the “happiness principle” has been argued for through Genetics –under the (absurd) assumption that human beings are genetically programmed to be happy–, Sociology and Social Psychology.

3. The happiness principle, both in its weak and strong formulation (its “happiness assumption”), is of the utmost importance when it comes to undertaking a classification of happiness literature.

The importance lies in the fact that the “happiness principle” allows us to understand the relationship between “happiness” and “man”. Indeed, whether man is considered to be immersed in the zoological field or existing outside of it, the happiness principle makes us face the issues concerning happiness, the “destiny of men” and their place in the “hierarchy of the universe.”

Consequently, every conception of happiness involves the happiness principle in some manner, in a way analogous to how the Principle of Inertia functions in Mechanics. We understand, then, that only happiness literature which makes use of the happiness principle will be able to offer a general theory of happiness, or a general doctrine of happiness.

And yet it must be said that the happiness principle is a principle that does not go beyond mere hypothesis. We would say that it lacks definable content, and because of this we postulate that happiness literature can teach us nothing.

The philosophical task of reflecting on happiness would then reside in trying to classify the different organizational possibilities within the field of happiness, giving a critical account of its nature and dialectic.