TIFFIN SCHOOL
An investigation and comparison of the
Bhutanese and Aristotelian models of
Happiness and their suitability to replace
the GDP model as a measurement of
economic development
Philosophy and Economics Academic Investigation
2012
Wafiq Islam
Abstract
During the last three decades, ‘happiness’ has become an increasingly researched indicator
of economic development. Bhutan, one most significant advocates of this research, introduced
a Gross National Happiness Index in an attempt to measure economic development. However,
there are several problems with the term ‘happiness’. For example, what is ‘happiness’? How
is ‘happiness’ measured? How can we achieve ‘happiness’? These questions of happiness
create plentiful problems, making it one of society’s most convoluted issues. By examining and
comparing the modern day ‘Gross National Happiness’ indicator of Bhutan with the PreSocratic view of ‘Eudemonia’, which allegedly infers the meaning of happiness, through
Aristotle’s ‘Virtue Ethics’, this paper will ultimately ask whether these two ‘Happiness’ models
are adequate replacements for the current materialistic Gross Domestic Product model as an
indicator of economic development. Both the Bhutanese and Aristotelian models agree
‘Happiness’ is the most significant goal for humanity yet both have different methods of
achieving and measuring this feeling.
Before divulging into this paper, one must understand the parameters of the analysis. Firstly,
such a comparison between the two models have never been accomplished in the academic
world and thus, it may well be conceivable that future academic will refine my work. Secondly,
research used to formulate these analyses have come from mainly secondary sources, but most
key points are from a primary source. Hence, they may well be a few inconstancies in my
analysis. Thirdly, this has been written with a prima facie understanding with an attempt to
look beyond the text and establish academic analysis, given one’s limited expertise in the area.
In short, despite these parameters, this paper is worthy of academic reading on the grounds
that it provides insightful and accurate understanding of the status quo regarding the academic
research of Happiness.
Introduction
During the past few decades, economists, politicians and even philosophers have constantly
argued over the reliability and usefulness of GDP1 indicator as a measurement of economic
development. As a result, there have been conflicts over the pursuit of certain policies needed
to enhance global economic development. ‘Economic development’2 is defined as the
“qualitative change and restructuring in a country's economy in connection with technological
and social progress”. In recent times, the aggregate sum of wealth and material goods in the
global economy has rapidly increased, due to globalisation, open trade links and technological
advances. However, despite increasing economic prosperity, at first instance, the standard GDP
measurement of economic development is clearly inadequate. This is because GDP fails to
encapsulate income inequality, poverty and ultimately, the concept of ‘well-being’ for the
individual and for society. Although Pareto’s efficiency research3 demonstrated the difficulty
of knowing what people might desire to maximise their welfare, some countries and researchers
are persistent, notably Bhutan. This paper investigates a non-western and pre-Socratic approach
to economic development, which considers non-economic goal, Happiness, more important
than economic ones, GDP. This paper will cover the following:
1)
2)
3)
Overview of the Bhutanese and Aristotelian models of Happiness from a
philosophical, political and economic perspective.
Comparison between the Bhutanese and Aristotelian models to identify the notable
differences and similarities.
Critical evaluation of the suitability of the Bhutanese and Aristotelian models as a
replacement of the GDP model to measure economic development.
1
Gross Domestic Product: The value of all final goods and services produced in a country in one year.
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/global/glossary.html
3 The Concept of Pareto Efficiency: http://pages.uoregon.edu/cjellis/441/441notes.pdf
2
2
Bhutanese Happiness Model
Throughout the 1960s, King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck4 asserted the aim of economic
development should be to “make people prosperous and happy” not a means of an expansion
of material wealth. Humanity should hold a holistic view of life which encapsulates people’s
spiritual and emotional well-being- a vision which Bhutan seeks to fulfil. Twenty years on,
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck5 argued there are a greater number of socio-economic
dimensions than those associated with GDP and that economic development should be
recognised as a process which seeks to maximise happiness, not economic growth. Hence
Bhutan introduced the concept of ‘Maximising Gross National Happiness’. This concept is at
the centre of Bhutanese model of economic development. It is driven by four pillars which
have political and cultural frameworks. This section will provide a detail explanation of
Bhutan’s philosophy of happiness, ‘Maximising Gross National Happiness’ concept, including
its constituents and the GNH index, including its components and processes.
Bhutan’s philosophy of happiness is based on the ability of humanity to freely make choices
and achieve socio-economic balance. Bhutan seeks to establish a happy society6, in which
people are safe, guaranteed a decent living and enjoy universal access to good education and
healthcare. The kingdom wants to remove pollution or violation of the environment, war and
inequalities through strengthening cultural and ethical values. A happy society, from a
Bhutanese perspective, is grounded on the hope and aspirations of a more equal and
compassionate society, where sharing and satisfaction evolves from a positive communal
feeling. Furthermore, happy society consists of people enjoying freedom, where there is no
oppression and the cultural arts such as drama and music flourish. In summary, Bhutanese
philosophy of happiness envisages a stable and harmonious society7.
The ‘Maximising Gross National Happiness’8 concept places the individual at the centre of all
economic development efforts and recognises the individual has material, spiritual and
emotional needs. It argues that economic development should not be defined wholly in material
terms of increased consumption of goods and services. By seeking to promote human
happiness, the focus is on what matters most to people: their security, peace and comfort. The
pursuit of GNH calls for a multi-dimensional approach to economic development that seeks to
maintain harmony and balance between economic forces, environmental preservation, cultural
and spiritual values and good governance. Consequently, Bhutanese government formulated
“Four Pillars of Happiness”9: 1) sustainable development, 2) preservation and promotion of
cultural values, 3) conservation of the natural environment, and 4) establishment of good
governance.
1. Sustainable development
The overarching goal of every aspect of life, even from an economic perspective, is not seen in
the accumulation of material wants, which can be satisfied by consumption, but in the
purification of the human character. The economic objectives such as increasing consumption
and accelerating growth are only relevant as means to an entirely different end. Bhutan use
Buddhist concepts to turn western economic thinking which views all pre- and non-capitalist
values as influential to either facilitating or hindering economic growth, on its ‘head’.
Bhutanese employ Buddhist moral philosophy to suggest well-being is extracted from the
harmonisation of spiritual and material aspects of life. Therefore, Buddhism is the single most
important determinant for sustainable development. For the Bhutanese value base endowed the
4
http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/78
http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/92
6 http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/multimedia/
7 http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/savifadok/volltexte/2009/324/pdf/GNH_Ch7_PhuntshoPrakkeChettri.pdf
8 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/asiathepacific/bhutan/bhutan_2000_en.pdf
9 http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/articles/
5
3
core concept for “Gross National Happiness”, the perception of human well being as the
fundamental objective of economic activity.
2. Preservation and Promotion of Cultural Values
The preservation and promotion of Bhutanese culture is another factor in economic
development as Buddhist cultural ideology is prevalent. It is argued regression in traditional
heritage and culture will lead to a dissatisfaction of society. Therefore, preservation of culture
is a high government priority.
3. Conservation of the Natural Environment
The relationship between humanity and the environment is different from the western
approach. Buddhist concept of sunyata explains that no subject or object has an independent
existence. In addition, Buddhism perceives reality as circular with human lives regarded as a
stage in an eternal cycle of reincarnation. This alters the relationship to the environment since
sustainable development is in everybody’s self-interest instead of the interest of future
generations. Environmental conservation is also valued widely throughout Bhutan as many
citizens’ sources of livelihood are dependent on their natural environment, especially those
working agriculturally. It is commonly believed that irresponsible activities in nature will lead
to negative and thus, unhappy outcomes. In short, most Bhutanese accept the fact that the
environment should be preserved for others and the future generation, limiting severe
environmental degradation.
4. Establishment Good governance
The National Assembly of Bhutan stated in 1959 that “to maintain the sovereignty of the
kingdom through economic self-reliance”10 was among its primary goal. Since then, many
policies bear the stamp of the centrality of self-reliance. Good government needs self-reliance
both in financial resources and manpower requirement because it enables the government to
reach a beatific vision of economic development. Good governance is apparent through the
government’s dedication of promoting happiness and well-being of its citizens. For example,
the King11 withdrew from the executive function of government in 1998 and universal voting
rights were introduced in 2002. Civil society has had the opportunity to provide input in
legislative matters and a policy was in place to have a multi-party system by 2008. In short,
good, established governance is required to bring about the benevolent nature of society.
Gross National Happiness is measured by a GNH index is formed of nine domains12 which are:
1) Psychological Well-being, 2) Health, 3) Time Use, 4) Education, 5) Cultural Diversity and
Resilience, 6) Good governance, 7) Community Vitality, 8) Ecological Diversity and
Resilience and 9) Living Standards. These domains represent each of the components of
wellbeing of the Bhutanese people.
10
http://www.bhutan2008.bt/ndlb/typescripts/10/GNH_Ch3_Priesner.pdf
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck
12 http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Short-GNH-Index-final1.pdf pg 13
11
4
Figure 1: The nine domains and
33 indicators of the GNH index
Within each of
those
nine
domains, there
are indicators13
which have certain percentage point weighting attached to them when calculating GNH Index.
The nine domains of GNH are equally weighted because they are of equal importance.
Therefore, none can be permanently ranked as more important than others but each might be
particularly important to some person or some institution at a given point in time. Here is a list
of those indicators:
Figure 1: Respective weights of
33 indicators
Despite different weight values, the thirty-three indicators are roughly equally weighted but the
subjective and self-report indicators have lighter weights and the indicators which are
13
http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Short-GNH-Index-final1.pdf pg 42
5
anticipated to be more objective and/or more reliable have relatively higher weights when the
domains mix subjective and objective indicators.
To assess the impact of policies14 and projects on GNH, Bhutan use GNH screening tool which
can be understood through three parts. Firstly, ‘methodology’; to assess all policies and projects
is to undergo screening question, covering all nine domains, which has 4-pointer scale ranging
from 1 to 4. This 4 pointer scale is ranked from one denoting a negative score, two is uncertain,
three is a neutral score and four denotes a positive score. Secondly, the ‘calculation’ component
is simply adding up all the scores for a specific policy or project. Beforehand, neutral scores of
such are multiplied by the number of screening questions to determine the average score the
project or policy needs for it to be implemented. Finally, the ‘scoring’ is done by a
heterogeneous group comprising of qualified experts and professionals from different
occupational background would be assessing the GNH screening tools. Such a group provides
diverse occupational backgrounds to work towards a consensus about project impacts. This
process ensures a holistic approach to economic development is maintained through its policies
and projects.
In conclusion, Bhutanese Happiness Model is based on the ideology that the pursuit of
happiness is found in all people and is the strongest force of desires. ‘Maximising Gross
National Happiness’ is a “middle path” approach in which spiritual and material pursuits are
balanced. GNH index is a program for social and economic revisions toward implementation
and institutionalisation of the belief that economic development should promote happiness as
its primary value. It considers economic growth to be just one aspect that improves the social
requirements of society and is not seen as the dominating force in economic development. As
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck15 said, “Gross National Happiness is more important than
Gross National Product”.
Aristotelian Happiness Model
The Aristotelian Model of Happiness for economic development is based on an individualistic
actualisation of one’s potential to achieve happiness. Happiness is the final cause of life: it is
the ‘highest good’ for the human being16. Furthermore, happiness is self-sufficient, because
there is nothing that added to it would increase its value. There is an indivisible bond between
happiness and the practice of virtues because virtues bring rewards regardless of self-interest.
Thus, happiness can be reached only as a by-product if it is sought in non-instrumental ways
such as seeking to be virtuous. This introduces the concept of eudemonia - the main strand of
development for virtue ethics. This section will discuss the concept of eudemonia, how it is
achieved, how the political and economic system can assist citizens achieve eudemonia and
ultimately, happiness.
‘Eudaimonia’ is translated as ‘state of flourishing’. Etymologically, is composed by the words
‘eu’, translated as ‘well’ and ‘daimōn’ translated as ‘spirit’. To further explain, the Greek
expression means the highest end which a human person can realise; in Aristotle’s words ‘what
is the highest of all goods achievable by action’17. As a consequence, eudemonia is an end
‘which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake
of something else…for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something
else’18. That makes happiness ‘the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world’19. All
the other good things, including wealth, are only a means for reaching happiness. Happiness,
14
http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/gnh-policy-and-project-screening-tools/
Laurence J. Brahm, The Anti-Globalization Breakfast Club: Manifesto for a Peaceful Revolution, Singapore:
John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
16 http://cefup.fep.up.pt/uploads/ECO%20Seminars/2010/LuiginoBruni_5_Nov.pdf pg 394
17 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (NE), I, 4, 1095a
18 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (NE), I,7, 1097a
19 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (NE), I,8,1099a
15
6
therefore, can never be a means. This explains why the ‘final’ cause cannot be an ‘instrument’
for something else. For example, neither wealth nor health can ever be final ends because they
can only be means for living a good life. In short, eudemonia is the state of flourishing and
thus, attain happiness, which is the highest end that any human can achieve.
Eudemonia is achieved through two routes. The first route is ‘human excellence’ which is self
determined by the human psyche. Psyche is composed of a rational dimension and non-rational
dimension. The rational dimension is defined as the psyche’s intellectual excellence which
deals with reason, logos. There are two types of reasoning; Theoretical reasoning which
investigates the truth of contingent events as well as necessary truths. In other words, through
intuition and inference, which derive from theoretical wisdom20, theoretical reasoning is the
use of reason to decide what to believe in21. Practical reasoning, in contrast, is concerned not
with the truth of propositions but with the value of action22. It determines whether a prospective
course of action is worth pursuing by using practical wisdom and prudence. Both types of
reasoning are used for one to achieve eudemonia. Psyche’s non-rational dimension is based on
physical and material needs. There are two categories; desire which controls our moral
excellence and thus, how and to what extent, our reason permits us to express our emotions.
This leads one to the ‘Golden Mean’ which is the middle way between one of excess and the
other of deficiency. For example, moral virtue such as courage, if taken to excess would show
as recklessness and if deficient, as cowardice. The other part is vegetative needs which concern
physical organic process such as growth and nutrition. These processes require a healthy
balance to reach eudemonia. The second route of eudemonia is ‘External Goods’ which is food,
clothing and housing. External goods are also necessary for a virtuous life because a person
who lacks things such as good family and friends might find it difficult to be happy. In short,
both routes are required to be actualised and reach eudemonia.
The importance of eudemonia in virtue ethics is that it reverses the relationship between virtue
and rightness. In eudaemonist virtue ethics, the virtues are justified because they are
constitutive elements of eudemonia, which is good in itself. The basic link between virtues and
eudemonia exemplifies a fundamental link regarding the whole Aristotelian theory of
happiness. To explain further, eudemonia is a way to happiness, but virtues bear their rewards
such as happiness, only if sought not instrumentally, but only if internalised as being
intrinsically good. As soon as virtue is used as a means, it is no longer virtue. Thus, happiness
is the indirect result of practicing virtues. Virtues, thus, are means to happiness only if they are
not only a means. This represents ‘Aristotle’s happiness paradox’, also known as the ‘teleological paradox’23. For Aristotle, there is an intrinsic value in relational and civil life, without which
human life does not fully flourish. Though human life must be able to flourish for yourself, in
the sense it cannot be totally jeopardised by bad fortune, it is true that in Aristotelian thought,
some of the essential components of the ‘good’ life are tied to interpersonal relationships.
Aristotle argued these philosophical ideals are implemented with politics. ‘polis’ is translated
as ‘city’ but could also mean citizenship. Aristotle argues state politics aims ‘at the most
supreme of all goods’24, which is the highest good of man. The highest good of man is virtue
or the perfection of his nature. Thus, the polis is set up to make men virtuous, to make them
conform to what is highest in them by nature. The aim of politics is happiness because politics
‘gives utmost attention in forming citizens in a certain way, that is to make them good and
committed to carrying out beautiful actions’25. Only the citizen, free and male, in Aristotle
http://www.firstuualton.org/Sermon_files/thewisdomofaristotle.htm: “possessing knowledge of what reality is
like, of knowing what is true and what is false”
21 http://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/PT.pdf
22 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/#PraTheRea
23 Brennan and Pettit 2004
24 Pol. 1252a5; cf. N.E. 1094b49
25 Pol I,9,1099b
20
7
ethics can be fully happy26.Moral action is possible only within the polis. Man exists for living
well, and the good life is the same for the individual man and the polis. In other words, virtue,
which is based on nature, requires choice; but making the right choice depends on habituation
since one must be trained away from the easy, slavish inclination to their passions. Hence
politics “aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action ... for both the general
run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness”27. In summary, Aristotle
argued the state aids man in his search for the good life.
Economics is formed, in the Greek etymology, from the words "oikos" and "nomos"28. "oikos"
is translated as ‘household’, ‘large estate’ or even a ‘village’. “nomos" is translated as a
‘distribution’ or ‘management,’ being derived from "nemein", to ‘distribute’ or ‘manage’. To
explain further, Aristotle widened the notion of economy into the public domain and in the
process, developed a theoretical apparatus capable of describing market mechanisms29.
Aristotle taught that economics is concerned with both the household and the polis and
economics handles the use of things required for virtuous life. As a practical science,
economics is fundamentally moral by which it isolated goods that satisfy economic needs. For
Aristotle, the primary meaning of economics is the action of using things required for the ‘good
life’. In addition, he distinguishes economics as a capacity that promotes behaviour that hasten
the action. Economics is a type of carefulness or practical knowledge that aids a person in
properly obtaining and using those things that are necessary for living well. The end of
economics, as a practical science, is attaining effective actions to reach eudemonia. In short,
eudemonia is made closer to people if the economic systems provide certain material
conditions which are vital for humans to freely pursuit eudemonia and thus, obtain the ‘good’
or ‘virtuous’ life.
In conclusion, the Aristotelian Model of Happiness for economic development is based on
one’s ability to actualise their psyche’s intellectual and moral excellence and acquire ‘external’
goods to achieve eudemonia and consequently, happiness.
Comparison between Bhutanese and Aristotelian Happiness Model
There are notable differences and similarities between the Bhutanese and Aristotelian models.
However, I shall give three differences and/or similarities from philosophical, political and
economic perspective, which is essential to understanding the broader picture of this debate.
Philosophically, the two models have different philosophies but ultimately have the same goal.
Both models adhere to the conclusion that happiness is the primary goal of humanity and
consider the importance of emotional and spiritual needs in measuring happiness. However,
the emotional and spiritual needs are considered more so in the Aristotelian model. For
example, Aristotle’s Happiness model is focus on spiritual actualisation which is internal to
one’s psyche. Bhutan’s Happiness model does account for spiritual factors under its
psychological being heading in the GNH index. The model does see equal importance on
spiritual, cultural and emotional needs of the people which must be placed on economic
development. However, it accounts more material factors such as assets and healthcare.
From a political viewpoint, both models conform to the point the state or some form of
governmental body must provide public policies and goods to assist the individual in achieving
happiness. Aristotle strongly emphasised the supremacy of the state and looked at markets as
necessary evils. He refers to Phoenicians “A state should practice commerce for itself, but not
for others”30. Polis should not do that. Moreover, happiness was not viewed as an emotion in
26
Pol I,9,1099b
Pol I,4,1095a
28 http://kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/
29 http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1993/04.02.13.html
30 In Book VII of Politics [28]
27
8
the private sector, but more importantly a reflection of a person’s position within a city-state.
Bhutanese model also regards good political order is required because good government
performance in reducing income inequality or unemployment, providing good public services
such as electricity and allowing fundamental rights such as right to freedom is important for
society’s happiness to be achieved.
Economically, both models express the need for public sector and strong state authority (which
does not result in dictatorship). Aristotle strongly resented private sector activities and the
practice of using inside knowledge to reach private material goals. He realised a flourishing
city-state was not only that which sustained a large population, which he accepted as a
necessity, but that which maintained a harmonious correspondence between the extent of the
land or other natural resources and the number of citizens31. Bhutanese model, similar to
Aristotle model, believe the public sector is a necessary so that everyone receives optimal
‘happiness’. However, there is a difference which occurs in the economic ideologies used
between Bhutan and Aristotle. Bhutan has formulated an index to measure happiness, Aristotle
has not. However, this could be explained by the fact, in Aristotle’s era, there was no complex
scientific and mathematical framework. Hence, one should not be acrostic and criticise a theory
with tools from another time frame.
In conclusion, the most significant similarity is that happiness is the ultimate end or purpose
and the most significant difference is that Bhutan developed quantitative methods to measure
Happiness whereas Aristotle was more interested in qualitative details of happiness.
Suitability of Bhutanese Happiness Model
Although the Bhutanese Happiness Model has seemed to tackle the difficult transition between
theory and practise, at first instance, prima facie, it faces several criticisms.
One of the weaknesses the Bhutanese Happiness Model suffers is from its inability to teach
young people objective and dynamic ways to live their lives32. In a teaching environment,
which is largely grounded on the scientific worldview and western philosophy, ‘culture’ has
been restricted to specific mythological aspects of Bhutan’s history, in which Buddhism played
an important role. Therefore, it seems necessary to modify culture teaching in order to enhance
the weight on the Buddhist value base and philosophy. In turn, this will provide the educated
generation with the foundation of the Bhutanese worldview. In short, Bhutanese Happiness
model’s biggest challenge of Gross National Happiness, in the long run, is to give sufficient
attention to the preservation of Bhutan's unique culture and redefine the concept dynamically
in order to attract the young generation and serve nation building.
Another weakness of the Bhutanese Happiness model is the overreliance on the public sector33.
Twenty years ago, Bhutan introduced several economic liberalisation policies to stimulate
private sector development because the public sector could no longer absorb the rapidly
growing educated workforce. Hence, private sector development is essential to address
Bhutan's main socioeconomic challenges - unemployment and urbanisation. However, since a
private sector (apart from agriculture) was non-existent throughout Bhutan's history, the
concept of private sector development and its promoting policies are mysterious to GNH.
Furthermore, the proposed private sector development is contradictory to several assumptions
of the Bhutanese economic approach. The current role of the state contradicts a flourishing
private sector because private sector development requires the paternalistic state withdraw from
the monitoring position as an agent. Secondly, to promote private business effectively, the
government will be forced to prioritise towards an increased centrality of economic concerns.
Thirdly, private sector development requires a reorientation of people’s attitudes towards
31
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1993/04.02.13.html
www.bhutan2008.bt/ndlb/typescripts/10/GNH_Ch3_Priesner.pdf 42
33 www.bhutan2008.bt/ndlb/typescripts/10/GNH_Ch3_Priesner.pdf 43
32
9
saving, consumption, work, time and profit from traditional values to the market rules. These
structural pressures may put at risk the non-economic objectives of Bhutanese economic
development such as cultural and environmental preservation. However, Bhutanese Happiness
Model is one of the few models to translate qualitative factors of happiness into quantitative
results. It employs statistical analysis to value emotions. However, the biggest criticism it faces
is whether it calculates the person’s long term or short term feeling of happiness and whether
their valuation of happiness is accurately correct. To conclude, the Bhutanese Happiness Model
is flawed, in the long run, because, according to conventional free market economy, successful
private sector entails an entirely different "enabling environment" than the one prevailing in
Bhutan and its inability to provide reliable, time framed statistics. However, Bhutan’s GNH
index is a step in the right direction to calculate people’s happiness.
Finally, the degeneration of Bhutanese Happiness model is completed on the grounds the model
can be reduced on a rhetorical level34. This is because the GNH is a reflection of a particular
cultural consciousness rather than an academic construct. In the past, one could argue this was
the concept’s strength, when all policy-makers were products of the traditional Bhutanese
system, with a strong consciousness of this identity. However, as globalisation develops, it
strong consciousness weakens. Once workers attain western education, they begin to lose this
link to the local set of values. As consciousness is bound to come under increasing pressure, it
is certain to wilt. In short, Bhutanese Happiness model suffers a fatal blow on not being able
to justify itself as an academic, logical model which does not follow cultural ‘mythos’.
In conclusion, Bhutanese Happiness model makes an appealing attempt to quantify well-being.
It clearly sees GDP as flawed and a more equitable and balanced approach is needed to enhance
well-being and thus, economic development. However, considering the criticisms, it faces long
term problems in sustaining its culture and public sector.
Suitability of Aristotelian Happiness Model
Although the Aristotelian Happiness Model employs a model based on self progressive and
spiritual reward, at first instance, prima facie, it faces criticisms from philosophical and
economic perspectives.
One notable weakness of Aristotle’s ‘eudemonia’ is it renders to radical form of egoism. Virtue
ethics is self-centred because its primary concern is with the agent’s own character35. In other
words, it seems to be essentially interested in the attainment of the virtues as part of the agent’s
own well-being and flourishing. This seems to adhere to the ‘homo economicus’36 which states
humans are rational, completely selfish and can solve even the most difficult optimisation
problems. However, these assumptions are falsified by empirical observation of the current
global economy. In short, Aristotle’s ‘eudemonia’ leads radical form of egoism, making
Aristotelian Happiness Model unethical.
Another weakness of Aristotelian Happiness Model is with virtue ethics. With its emphasis on
the imprecise nature of ethics, virtue ethics fails to give one any help with the practicalities of
how one should behave. Morality is assumed to be in relation to other people. It deals with
one’s actions to the extent that they affect other people. Therefore, it requires us to consider
others for their own sake and not because they may benefit one. A theory that fails to be actionguiding is no good as a moral theory. Thus, Aristotelian Happiness Model results in failing to
answer how one should behave. The main response to this criticism is to stress the role of the
virtuous agent as an exemplar. Virtue ethics places considerable of emphasis on the
development of moral judgment. Knowing what to do is not a matter of internalising a moral
principle, but a life-long process of moral learning that will only provide clear answers when
34
www.bhutan2008.bt/ndlb/typescripts/10/GNH_Ch3_Priesner.pdf 45
http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/
36 pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/homo.pdf
35
10
one reaches moral peak. Virtue ethics cannot give us an easy, instant answer because these
answers do not exist. Nonetheless, it can be action-guiding if we understand the role of the
virtuous agent and the importance of moral education and development. If virtue objectively
consists of the right reason and the right desire, virtue ethics will be action-guiding when one
can perceive the right reason and have successfully habituated one’s desires to affirm its
commands. However, how can an objective criteria for morality come to fruition? Who
formulates this criterion? On that point, Aristotelian Happiness Model is unconvincing.
Despite these weaknesses, Aristotelian Happiness Model does have modern merits because it
lays a path which appeals human psychology. PERMA model was developed by respected
positive psychologist, Martin Seligman37. "PERMA"38 is an acronym for five essential
elements that should be in place for us to experience lasting well-being. (P) stands for ‘Positive
Emotion’ such as peace, curiosity. (E) stands for ‘Engagement’ in which one experience a state
of flow and concentrate intensely on the present. (R) stands for ‘Positive Relationships’ which
are core to our well-being. (M) stands for ‘Meaning’ which comes from serving a cause bigger
than ourselves. Whether this is a specific deity or religion or a cause that helps humanity and
(A) stands for ‘Achievement’ which derives from the fact humans strive to better themselves
through means such as mastering a skill or achieving a valuable goal. In relation to Aristotle,
the elements reflect his idea of virtues such as prudence and temperance. These modern
structures of positive psychology are difficult to implement universally. Furthermore, is our
science developed enough to proportionately translate our psychological, qualitative findings
into consistent, measurable quantitative values of happiness? In short, Aristotelian Happiness
Model suffers heavily on this point.
In conclusion, the Aristotelian model, despite having good points, suffers from practical
deficiencies. Although this model provides logically coherent framework, which can
theoretically address economic development, there is plenty of scepticism amongst whether its
solutions are as practically applicable as the GDP model is.
Final Analysis
In the final analysis, there is a clear spectrum of models with regards to the measurement of
economic development. On one side, the GDP model wholly relies on economic growth,
disregarding ethical and cultural factors. On the other side, the Aristotelian Happiness model
relies on an individualistic virtue ethicist argument which does not consider external factors.
Bhutanese Happiness model provides a middle way by synthesising economic measures and
cultural, philosophical concepts but is accused of arbitrary indicators. Having considered the
research of each model, Bhutanese Happiness Model is the most suitable replacement for the
GDP’s model because it has implemented polices to produce a stable society with maximised
positive feeling and has a good mathematical framework of measuring happiness with the
potential to be significantly improved as science develops.
37
38
Flourish. Martin Seligman Free Press; Reprint edition (April 5, 2011)
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/perma.htm
11