Monday, May 16, 2011

Should we view human flourishing in terms of psychology, capablility or opportunity?


This question may seem like just another intellectual puzzle, but it is actually has important implications for the way we view public policy issues. My bottom line is that the way we answer this question if we are thinking about the flourishing of a close relative or friend might be quite inappropriate if we are thinking about the development of public policy.

I think the best place to begin my explanation is with a brief discussion of the three different perspectives. I don’t wish to imply that these are the only ways of looking at human flourishing – they just seem highly influential.

Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-beingMartin Seligman is a leading exponent of the psychological perspective. In his recent book, ‘Flourish’, Seligman suggests that well-being theory ‘is essentially a theory of uncoerced choice, and its five elements comprise what free people will choose for their own sake’. The five elements he identifies are: positive emotion (pleasant experiences, happiness and life satisfaction); engagement (the flow state); relationships (positive relations with other people); meaning (belonging to and serving something bigger than yourself); and accomplishment (success, achievement, mastery). In an earlier post I suggested that Seligman has missed another important element that people seek for its own sake, namely control over their own lives. A more fundamental criticism of this approach is that it ignores all elements of well-being other than psychological well-being. For example, it seems reasonable to suppose that free people would usually choose to be healthy rather than ill even if their health made no contribution to their psychological well-being.

Capabilities and HappinessThe capability approach has been developed by Amartya Sen, an economist. Sen argues that a person’s capability reflects the alternative combination of functionings the person can attain and from which he or she can choose one collection. Functionings include objective criteria as being adequately nourished and being in good health as well as a range of other factors such as achieving self-respect and being socially integrated. In his contribution to ‘Capabilities and Happiness’ (2008, edited by Luigino Bruni et al) Sen notes that individuals may differ a good deal from each other in the weights they attach to different functionings. He seems unwilling, however, to leave the weighting exercise to the individuals concerned. He suggests that ‘the weighting exercise has to be done in terms of explicit valuations, drawing on the prevailing values in a given society’. He also refers to our capability ‘to achieve functionings that we have reason to value’.

The concept of opportunity proposed by Robert Sugden, also an economist, rests on ‘an understanding of persons as responsible rather than rational agents’. According to this view individuals may sometimes act foolishly but nevertheless accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The term ‘opportunity as mutual advantage’ expresses the idea that ‘one person’s opportunities cannot be specified independently of other people’s desires’. The freedom of some other person to seek out and take advantage of opportunities for mutual benefit encompasses his or her freedom to seek out and take advantage of opportunities to benefit you and me. Sugden implies that if everyone has opportunity in this sense, then you and I should see ourselves to be part of an economic system that is full of people who can expect to be rewarded for finding ways to benefit us (‘Opportunity as mutual advantage’, Economics and Philosophy (26)).

If we are considering the well-being of relatives and friends we might consider that opportunity, capability and psychology are all relevant to our assessment. For example, we might be able to think of people who have high levels of psychological well-being even though they have relatively low capability in some respects because we consider that they have not made good use of the opportunities available to them. We might be able to think of others who are unhappy even though they have high levels of capability and have had superior opportunities in life.

However, from a public policy perspective, what business does the government have in trying to improve the capability or psychological well-being of a person if this interferes with his or her status as a responsible agent? We might think that the capability and psychological well-being of such people would be improved if they drank less alcohol or gambled less, for example, but as far as I can see we have no right to prevent them from spending their income as they choose.

The situation becomes rather different if the government is offering some kind of benefit that is intended to improve the capability or well-being of some group. In that situation, it seems to me that the donors (taxpayers) have every right to attach conditions to the proposed benefit and the intended beneficiaries have every right to refuse to accept it if they don’t like the conditions attached.


Some might suggest that the alternatives to accepting a benefit with strong conditions attached could sometimes be so unpalatable that the conditions amount to coercion. I don’t accept that economic incentives ever force people to do anything. Nevertheless, if a person chooses to die rather than accept the conditions attached to a benefit, the question arises of whether this should be viewed as the choice of a responsible agent. Paternalistic intervention may be warranted to protect people who are not of sound mind as well as children.

However, there are also difficult issues involved in considering government proposals to improve the psychological health of children. The recent Australian Government Budget proposes a health and well-being check for 3 year old children on the grounds that ‘around 15.4 per cent of all children and adolescents (those aged up to seventeen years) have a mental disorder’. Internationally renowned experts are apparently telling the government that ‘there is a growing body of evidence showing that you can identify kids with (or at risk of) conduct disorders or poor development very early – from three years old’. The government claims: ‘Intervening early means building strong and resilient children, and avoiding behavioural or mental health issues that can persist for the rest of a person’s life’.

Should I be concerned about this proposal? Perhaps it just offers parents better opportunities to ensure that children get services necessary for their psychological wellbeing. On the other hand, it could be the thin end of a large wedge leading to greater use of pharmaceutical products to control behaviour of children and greater government intervention in family life. I wish I could be more confident that the proposed intervention will actually build strong and resilient children.

Postscript:
On reflection, the paragraph beginning 'Some might suggest that the alternatives to accepting a benefit ... ' doesn't adequately capture the ideas I would like to express. In my view, although welfare systems should be directed to a large extent toward helping people to help themselves, communities should have an over-riding commitment to meeting basic needs of people who have no other means of support.

7 comments:

Thought Bubble Ten said...

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!




I'll come back later and unpack that.

Winton Bates said...

Please do!

Thought Bubble Ten said...

Well, let me start with this new-fangled proposal to do psych tests on 3 year olds in the hope of minimizing psychological disturbance (immediate and ongoing, individual and collective ).

I think that any test should be first used on the proponents of such testing and those who support them/it i.e. government officials/parliamentarians as well as their children.

If it's found that the test results are accurate, then we MIGHT consider rolling it out to the general public.

Next, I don't think that people choose anything other than happiness for its own sake. Ultimately, everything we do/chose is done/chosen to fulfill our desire to be happy. That includes engagement, meaning and control.

Just because people are often unable to see this link (largely because they are unaware and/or in denial of their tacit beliefs and motivations) and therefore espouse and claim other motivations doesn't mean that they don't ultimately seek happiness through everything they do (no matter how convoluted the trail-back to the *happiness* motivation may appear to us or them).

Finally, as far as responsibility, opportunity and capbility/psychological wellbeing go, if we accept that we are all interrelated and interdependent, then the presence/practice of each of these is always mutually beneficial.

The question you raise about whether a government has the right to intervene in an individual's life in order to ensure his/her ability to be responsible, opportunistic and capable for the benefit of all rather than for his/her benefit only requires at least two prior questions:

1. To what extent does personal freedom differ from and impact upon collective freedom?

2. Who decides and on what basis?

These questions are obviously too difficult for me to answer but please feel free to have a go yourself Winto :). Besides, I've said enough to write 10 books on (Your post could easily churn out 100 :))

I'll be back to read your always carefully considered response :)

Hasta la vista!

Winton Bates said...

Thanks for explaining, TBT. I wasn’t exactly sure what your first reaction meant. I will intersperse my responses with your comments.
“Well, let me start with this new-fangled proposal to do psych tests on 3 year olds in the hope of minimizing psychological disturbance (immediate and ongoing, individual and collective ).
I think that any test should be first used on the proponents of such testing and those who support them/it i.e. government officials/parliamentarians as well as their children.
If it's found that the test results are accurate, then we MIGHT consider rolling it out to the general public.”
That idea appeals to me. I’m actually fairly alarmed about this proposal. We should be looking carefully to see just what the proposal actually involves when more details become available.

“Next, I don't think that people choose anything other than happiness for its own sake. Ultimately, everything we do/chose is done/chosen to fulfill our desire to be happy. That includes engagement, meaning and control.
Just because people are often unable to see this link (largely because they are unaware and/or in denial of their tacit beliefs and motivations) and therefore espouse and claim other motivations doesn't mean that they don't ultimately seek happiness through everything they do (no matter how convoluted the trail-back to the *happiness* motivation may appear to us or them).”
So, you agree with Aristotle (and me). The problem is that if we agree that happiness is the ultimate motivation then we are left with the problem of what happiness means. Is it pleasure, happy feelings, life satisfaction, or all the above and everything else that humans need to flourish? If happiness is human flourishing then it makes sense to consider what things are integral to human flourishing. If we are able to identify all the things that are integral to our own flourishing and give them appropriate weights then I think we have defined happiness what happiness means to us as individuals.

Comment continued below.

Winton Bates said...

TBT: Response continues:
“Finally, as far as responsibility, opportunity and capability/psychological wellbeing go, if we accept that we are all interrelated and interdependent, then the presence/practice of each of these is always mutually beneficial.”
I think some of these concepts are more closely linked than others. If individuals want to have the opportunity to live as they choose then I think it follows that they need to accept responsibility for their actions. A person can’t claim that they are not responsible for their past actions because they were a different person in the past. However, opportunities include opportunities to do things that may reduce future capability and psychological well-being of an individual. In my view we should respect the rights of individuals (adults) to make their own choices even when we think they are making choices that we think are likely to be bad for them.

“The question you raise about whether a government has the right to intervene in an individual's life in order to ensure his/her ability to be responsible, opportunistic and capable for the benefit of all rather than for his/her benefit only requires at least two prior questions:
1. To what extent does personal freedom differ from and impact upon collective freedom?
2. Who decides and on what basis?”
I don’t see collective freedom as different from or additional to individual freedom. When we act collectively to protect freedom it is always individual freedom that we are protecting. We protect against foreign invasion because this would have nasty consequences for individuals. We protect against other forms of coercion for the same reason.
Perhaps your question stems from J S Mill’s view that the only valid reason for society to interfere with individual freedom is to protect itself. That would lead to thinking about how individual freedom impacts on ‘society’. But when we consider what it means for society to protect itself, I think this must always be about protecting individuals or groups of individuals. So, rather than thinking about what collective freedom might entail I think it is better to focus on the individual domain that society should protect i.e. the rights that individuals should have.
The answer to the 2nd question, ‘who decides’ must depend what we are talking about. As I see it the discussion is ongoing – everyone decides in the sense that they have their own views and may seek to persuade one another about what individuals should be allowed to do and what they should not be allowed to do – particularly where their actions affect others.
Nevertheless, we need laws defining boundaries and that raises the constitutional issue of who should decide what those laws should be or what they mean in particular cases. So, we also discuss the merits/legitimacy of different constitutional arrangements for making decisions. I argue that existing procedures for decision-making by legislatures and judiciary in Australia generally deserve respect, but even if that view is generally accepted it does not stop the ongoing discussion about the quality of decisions made by politicians and judges – or about whether there are better ways of making decisions.

“These questions are obviously too difficult for me to answer but please feel free to have a go yourself Winto :). Besides, I've said enough to write 10 books on (Your post could easily churn out 100 :))”

I had a go TBT, but I know I haven’t written the last word that will ever be written on the subjects raised. It is some comfort to know that the last word may never be written.
The way this post turned out was a bit of a disappointment to me. I think it started quite well, but it ended in complexity instead of in a clear argument that public policy should always focus on individual opportunities – the enabling conditions for individual flourishing. I might present the argument more clearly in my book.

“I'll be back to read your always carefully considered response :) Hasta la vista!”
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Seeya soon :)

Thought Bubble Ten said...

Oh, now you're tempting me to write another 10 books :).

This is one thought :

Seems to me that the larger a group gets, the harder it becomes to make decisions that meaningfully honour the need for individual choices to be fully expressed, something I believe can impact unhelpfully on their ability to flourish.

When the group gets to the size of countries, it gets to a state where personal meaning can get lost, diluted or simply too hard to cater for.

Also, it seems to me that the bigger a group gets, the more it feels a need to protect itself.

On the other hand, the smaller a group, the less threatening it is to other equally small groups and the more fluid all groups are.

Am I talking through my *hat*???

BTW My initial wail of frustration was partly a reaction to the complexity of your post (now that you've mentioned it yourself :)).

That said, you're doing a great job of bringing together a range of ideas and opinions from the so-called *experts*!

BTW Who is the target audience for your book?

Winton Bates said...

I don’t think you are talking through your hat, TBT.

I agree with you that it is more difficult for individual choices to be expressed in collective choices by large groups. That should lead us to expect the cohesiveness of the group to decline with size and for individual differences to be respected to a greater extent in larger groups.

I don’t think large groups would normally see greater need for protection. Small groups can more readily come into conflict with other small groups e.g. think tribal warfare - small groups tend to settle property disputes by going to war. When small groups find a way to live in peace with each other that seems to involve establishing an encompassing institutional structure which is able to settle property disputes etc without violence.

On the one hand, the larger group is conducive to peace and prosperity within the group. On the other hand the monopoly of the use of force in the hands of the government of large countries is tempting to those who want to rule the world and make everyone their slaves. So, it seems to be a good idea for constitutions to aim to get the best of both worlds by using various methods to disperse power (democracy, federalism, independent judiciary etc). This doesn’t work all that well, but it seems to be better than the alternatives available at the moment.

You asked about the target audience for my book. I’m hoping that it will be accessible to anyone who is interested in whether modern societies are heading in directions that will enable people to live happier lives. At the same time, I want the views expressed to be taken seriously by professionals with relevant expertise so I’m providing extensive end notes discussing relevant research findings etc.