關注社會:追求幸福不是政府的工作

The pursuit of happiness has a venerable tradition in British political economy. Jeremy Bentham, the late 18th century founder of utilitarianism, defined it thus: "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the party whose interest is in question . . . if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community; if a particular individual then the happiness of that individual . . . The interest of the community then, is what? – the sum of the interest of the several members who compose it."

追求幸福是英國政治經濟學中一個傳統。18世紀功利主義創始人傑裏米•邊沁(Jeremy Bentham)是對功利主義（utilitarianism，又稱效用主義）這麼下定義的："所謂效用的原則，是指按照會促進或妨礙利益相關者的幸福——如果是一個羣體，就是指這個羣體的幸福；如果是某個具體的人，就是指這個人的幸福——的傾向，來贊成或反對任何一項行動……那麼，羣體的利益是什麼？就是構成羣體的各個成員的利益的總和。"

This principle is not as obvious as it may sound. In Bentham's time it was challenged by many rival principles; for instance, judging actions by their contribution to French glory or the furthering of the Prussian state. Nearer to home it was challenged by the Aristotelian eudemonia, which valued happiness only so far as it contributed to the philosophical idea of a good life.

這一原則不如聽起來那麼理所當然。在邊沁所處的時代，它就受到了許多其他原則的挑戰；比如說，根據爲了法國的榮耀或者普魯士國家疆土擴大所做的貢獻來衡量行爲。更厲害的是亞里士多德學派的幸福觀對它構成的挑戰，該派認爲幸福只體現在完善哲學觀念中的美好生活。

Meanwhile Bentham's followers worried about how to measure happiness, eventually interpreting it as the opportunity to satisfy desires as revealed by people's choices in the marketplace or in voting. This did not satisfy the high-minded; but at least it set a high value on individual choice and did not seek to peer into men's souls.

同時，邊沁的追隨者們爲如何衡量幸福感到焦慮，最終他們將幸福詮釋爲滿足意願——人們在市場中或者在投票中的選擇就體現了他們的意願——的機會。這無法讓高尚的人感到滿意；但它起碼認爲個人選擇很有價值，而並未企圖深入探索人的靈魂。

Critics of such utilitarianism saw it as making a fetish of gross domestic product. But this was rubbish. Economists have known for a very long time that there are many components of utility not taken into full account in measures of GDP per head. It excludes leisure, the value of work undertaken in the home, environmental harm and benefits. Some have tried to construct more comprehensive human development indices, also covering matters such as literacy, access to clean water and life expectancy. My view has always been that these matters are best considered separately rather than combined in an overall measure that inevitably reflects the personal values of those who draw it up.

批評這種功利主義思想的人認爲它盲目崇拜國內生產總值(GDP)。但這種批評毫無意義。經濟學家們早就清楚，在衡量人均GDP時，在構成效用的所有因子中，還有許多因子沒有被充分考慮進去。諸如閒暇時光、家務勞動的價值、以及對環境的利弊。有些人嘗試構建更全面的人類發展指標，也把識字率、能否得到清潔用水和預期壽命等方面包括進去。我一貫的觀點是，這些方面最好要分開考慮，不要放入一個總體指標當中一起衡量——這個指標反映出的必然是指標創建者的個人價值觀。

But a more direct challenge to all these ways of thinking has been launched by a new breed of social scientists, who claim to measure happiness directly and to base public policy on the findings. The principal method of investigation for this branch of research is the questionnaire. People are asked to rate their happiness, satisfaction with life and so on. David Cameron, never to be outdone when it comes to a gimmick, has asked the UK Office for National Statistics to investigate the area and the first results are now available.

但是，一個新的社會科學門派對所有這些思想發出了更直接的挑戰，他們認爲應當直接去衡量幸福並且通過研究結果制定公共政策。這一派的主要調查研究方法是調查問卷。他們要求人們對自己的幸福感、生活滿意度等方面打分。在搞噱頭方面無人能敵的戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)，已要求英國國家統計局(ONS)調查國民幸福感，而初步結果現在已經揭曉。

With typical British caution, the official statisticians avoid the word happiness and ask about "life satisfaction". The responses are transformed into a scale from 1 to 10. They are presented as a complement to rather than a substitute for conventional economic indicators. The results, it has to be said, are not very startling.

帶着典型的英國式謹慎，官方統計人員沒有使用"幸福感"一詞，而是詢問"生活滿意度"。答案設計爲1至10分的範圍。其作用是對常規的經濟指標做出補充，而不是對其取而代之。不得不說，調查結果並不十分令人驚訝。

Mean ratings for nearly all groups are seven point something. The main exceptions with a lower rating include, sadly, "Black, African, Caribbean and Black British". Divorced and separated people do less well than either single people or those in partnerships. Unsurprisingly the unemployed also score less than seven. But occupation makes little difference. "Managers and directors" seem only slightly more satisfied with life than those in "elementary occupations". Nor are there great regional differences – though, for what it is worth, the highest scores come from Northern Ireland.

幾乎所有羣體的分數中值都爲7分左右。令人遺憾的是，得分較低的主要例外羣體是"黑人、非洲籍、加勒比籍、英籍黑人"。離婚或分居的人得分低於單身或有伴侶的人。意料中的是，失業的人得分也低於7分。但不同職業人羣間的得分差距非常小。"管理者和董事"羣體對生活的滿意度似乎僅略高於那些"處於初級崗位"的人羣。地區之間的分值差距也不大，儘管不論是否說明問題，得分最高的地區是北愛爾蘭。

All this is innocent enough; and if the official statisticians pursue their research they may find something more interesting. It is what may lie at the end of the road that is more worrying. Aldous Huxley sounded a warning in his 1932 novel Brave

這一切真是十足的天真；如果官方統計人員在調研時再深入一些，就可能會發現一些有趣的結論。而最終極的結果可能更加令人擔憂。1932年，奧爾德斯•赫胥黎(Aldous Huxley)便在小說《美麗新世界》(Brave New World)中發出了警告。在這本小說中，人都是有選擇性的孵化器培育出來的，分爲"阿爾法(α)"、"貝塔(β)"、"伽瑪(γ)"、"德爾塔(δ)"、 "愛普西隆(ε)"五種人，他們都安心於自己的命運。一旦出現幸福感減弱的蛛絲馬跡，就給他們服用一種名叫索麻(soma)的麻醉藥。

New World. People are bred in selective incubators to be alphas, betas, gammas, deltas and epsilons, and to be content with their lot. At the slightest sign of waning happiness, they are given a top-up drug, soma.

如果我們從世俗而非宗教的角度思考這個問題，赫胥黎筆下的"美麗新世界"到底有什麼不對呢？問題是我們沒有索麻這種東西。據我所知，世界上不存在沒有副作用或後遺症的幸福藥片。

If we think the matter through from a secular rather than a religious point of view, what is really wrong with Huxley's Brave New World? It is that there is no such thing as soma. To the best of my knowledge, there are still no happiness drugs devoid of side or after effects.

我們假設有吧。約翰•斯圖爾特•密爾(John Stuart Mill)有句名言：做痛苦的蘇格拉底，勝過做一頭快樂的豬。我一直暗中對那頭豬感到同情。然而，可能我們的幸運之處在於，不必在兩者之間進行選擇。

Suppose that there were. John Stuart Mill famously said that it is better to be Socrates unhappy rather than a pig happy. I have always had a sneaking sympathy for the pig. However, perhaps fortunately, we do not have that choice.

就讓英國國家統計局去進行滿意度調查吧。但歸根結底，英國政府在維持公共秩序、保障國家安全、爲社會繁榮創造條件以及縮小收入與財富差距等方面履行好自己的傳統職責，就能夠以間接手段爲增進國民幸福做出最大的貢獻。我們還有很長的路要走。