Although happiness and morality are conceptually independent, an empirical connection exists between a person’s moral character and happiness. Because most of us desire to develop and sustain relationships with others who will be more likely to react positively to us if we are kind and trustworthy, being moral enhances our potential for happiness. Alternatively, a person’s nastiness and treachery will win few friends. (Fred, after all, was not only crafty but lucky.)
We are not denying the possibility of a happy tyrant, a happy hermit, or a happy immoralist; to be happy, however, most of us rely on the good will of others. Psychologists studying happiness have found a positive correlation between people’s social contacts (including family and friends) and the level of satisfaction with life. As psychologist Michael Argyle notes, “In many studies [social relationships] come out as the greatest single source of happiness.”
1 Thus, although acting immorally might result in short-term gains, in the long run it is likely to besmirch our reputations and undermine our contentment.
A crucial issue often overlooked, however, is whether we benefit from actually being moral or merely appearing to be moral (like Fred). The virtuous person is bound by moral obligations and hence unable to capitalize on opportunities to increase happiness through immoral actions. The individual who merely appears to be virtuous might enjoy exactly the same advantages in reputation gained by someone who is genuinely virtuous but will be able to exploit situations in which immorality enhances happiness. Thus maximizing happiness could result not from being moral but appearing to be moral.
To develop this point more fully, consider these four cases: (1) a moral person who appears to be moral; (2) an immoral person who appears to be moral; (3) a moral person who appears to be immoral; and (4) an immoral person who appears to be immoral.
Case 4 is worst for the individual. The blatant immoralist may be able to achieve some limited goals but once recognized as immoral will likely face unhappiness, as a result of social disapproval or even time in jail.
Case 3, a moral person who appears to be immoral, is almost as bad for promoting happiness. Although such individuals can take pride in knowing they are acting morally, they will nevertheless suffer the negative consequences associated with the blatant immoralist.
Suppose that Linda, an attorney who believes that justice requires all those charged with a crime to have competent counsel, agrees to defend a terrorist accused of a murderous bombing. Linda has no sympathy for the deadly attack but does her best in the interests of her client. The public, however, fails to appreciate her position and views her as a terrorist sympathizer. Threats are made against Linda and her family, and she is eventually forced to give up her practice and move to another locale. She has acted morally and may receive personal satisfaction from having taken a courageous stand, but because the public views her actions as immoral, she has impaired her happiness, just as she would have had she acted immorally.
Case 1, a moral person who appears to be moral, offers a commonly accepted model for achieving happiness but still has drawbacks. In those circumstances in which happiness depends on acting immorally, the moral person will be forced to sacrifice happiness for the sake of morality. Do such circumstances actually arise? As we have seen, only those in the grip of an unrealistic philosophical theory deny the possibility.
Consider Ann, who is invited to a concert that takes place simultaneously with her sister’s moving to a new apartment. Ann had promised to help her sister move, but the performers are Ann’s favorite, and this appearance is their last engagement before they disband. Ann does not want to miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but her sister would be greatly upset if Ann breaks her promise. What should she do?
As a virtuous person she has no choice but to honor her commitment, thus sacrificing her happiness. If, however, she were not virtuous, she might fabricate a compelling excuse and be happier. Some might suppose that Ann’s lie would in some way bring her unhappiness, but that assumption, while perhaps comforting, is unwarranted. We could tell a story about how Ann’s breaking her promise worked out badly for her and her sister, but we could tell an equally plausible tale about how lying worked out well for both of them.
Sometimes the path of morality leads to misery. For instance, someone may stop to help a stranger fix a flat tire, only to be hit by an oncoming truck. Similarly, a whistle-blower who tells the truth may be fired, while a politician who refuses to vote against conscience may thereby forfeit a realistic chance for reelection. In such cases the individual’s happiness is lost as a result of adhering to ethical standards.
In case 2, however, an immoral person who appears to be moral, the subject possesses all the advantages of a reputation for honesty while avoiding the disadvantages of always acting as morality dictates. Such an individual retains the option of acting immorally whenever greater personal happiness would result. Admittedly, the person takes a risk because exposure might bring ruin, but by striving to develop the reputation of being moral, and acting immorally only when the payoff is huge and the chances of being caught are small, the crafty immoralist may find more happiness than anyone else.
Faced with this conclusion, some philosophers focus on cases of extreme depravity, then make the obvious point that such behavior is less preferable than adherence to morality. The more realistic option that confronts each person, though, is not whether to choose unmitigated evils but whether to do wrong when such action offers a likely means to happiness. When we face a critical decision in what may be highly tempting circumstances, we are, as Jean-Paul Sartre writes, “condemned to be free.”
2At this point many are apt to look to God to find a reason why we should act morally, even if doing so is likely to lead to personal unhappiness. God, it is said, has made clear the moral path, and we should act in accord with God’s will. This line of argument has wide appeal and deserves careful consideration.
