INTRODUCTION

• Happiness is primarily an individual experience, rooted in emotional or spiritual capacity, though influenced by external factors.
• Ethics is normative, focusing on conduct and prescribing right behavior for individuals in relation to others.
• Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences defines ethics as the organization or criticism of conduct in terms of concepts like good, right, or welfare.
• Economic values involve understanding economic phenomena and human desires concerning material life.
• Although happiness, ethics, and economic values seem unconnected, throughout history, they have been intertwined in daily life.
• A chronological sequence exists: happiness influences ethical principles, which in turn shape economic values.
• Classical Indian metaphysics sees every aspect of existence as unified, with Sri Aurobindo stating that oneness and stability are central to Indian thought.
• A clear intersection exists among happiness, ethics, and economic values in relation to human existence.
• In early economies (circa 3000 BC to AD 500), material production and exchange were simple, with custom guiding activities and little individual initiative.
• In ancient Greece, Hesiod addressed scarcity and the need for relentless effort due to harsh physical conditions.
• In ancient India, people prayed to the gods for regular and benign rains, reflecting a different relationship with nature.
• Scarcity from famine, floods, or disease meant distribution was a key focus for ancient philosophers, as material wealth depended heavily on the environment.
• Marshall’s dictum of the insatiability of human wants was valid in ancient times, just as it is today.
• When supply couldn’t meet demand, regulating desires through ethical systems became crucial for social stability.
• Ethical systems provided both individual and social ideals, focusing on restricting desires for material goods and emphasizing happiness from nonmaterial sources.
• Economic thinking aimed at restricting and fairly distributing goods, while also finding ways to increase output.
• The interconnection of happiness, ethics, and economic values in ancient thought reflected this balance between individual desires, social order, and material production.

HAPPINESS

• The Sanskrit phrase Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu translates loosely to “Let everyone fare well,” though sukha means more than just happiness, encompassing pleasure, well-being, and more.
• Sukha is contrasted with duhkha, which means sadness, deprivation, or unhappiness.
• The ultimate goal of economic activities is linked to achieving sukha, i.e., a sense of happiness, fulfillment, or well-being.
• In ancient and medieval times, the idea that pleasure or happiness is the highest good was common. Many Greek thinkers, including Epicurus, Callicles, and Antiphon, endorsed this view.
• Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were not considered Hedonists, though they also valued happiness.
• Even Stoics, often seen as indifferent to pleasure, did not oppose happiness.
• Christian theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas also acknowledged the pursuit of happiness, with Aquinas referring to beatitudo, akin to Aristotle’s eudaimonia.
• Ancient Indian thinkers viewed pleasure (priti), happiness (sukha), and bliss (ananda) as key goals, aligned with the ideals of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha.
• While happiness is universally desired, defining it precisely leads to economic and philosophical debates. Questions arise, like whether there can be happiness without pleasure.
• Extreme hedonism, as advocated by thinkers like Callicles and Indian sects like the Carvakas and Lokayatas, promoted unhampered individual pleasure as the ultimate goal.
• Kama Sutra reflects a refined form of hedonism that gained some following in the post-Buddhist era.
• Most philosophers, like Aristotle, noted that opinions differ on what happiness truly consists of, though it is widely accepted as the supreme good.
• Even Epicurus distinguished between temporary (kinetic) and long-lasting (catastematic) pleasures, advocating for the latter as the true goal.
• Philosophers like Plato and Epicureans warned against chasing fleeting pleasures, favoring peace of mind and tranquility as the highest forms of happiness.
• Plato preferred a neutral state between pleasure and pain, much like the Epicureans who saw tranquility, not indulgence, as the highest stage of happiness.
• Greek philosophers distinguished between good, right, just, and virtuous pleasures and those that were not. Individual happiness was not acceptable if it undermined social happiness. Even Hedonists, like Antiphon, believed pleasure should not harm others’ happiness.
• Antiphon advocated for maximizing pleasure while minimizing suffering but recognized that this couldn’t occur in an anarchic society.
• Greek philosophy categorized happiness into external, of the soul, and of the body, all of which should be good and long-lasting.
• Indian philosophers similarly distinguished between bodily happiness and spiritual happiness (through material goods versus spiritual endeavors). The Kathopanishad contrasts the Good with the Pleasant: the wise choose the Good, while the dull choose the Pleasant.
• This ancient Indian idea reflects that material and spiritual happiness are often opposites, and both cannot be pursued for long simultaneously.
• Vedic texts show that ancient Indians desired material wealth, but also cautioned against viewing material prosperity as the ultimate form of happiness.
• The Nachiketas parable from the Kathopanishad reinforces this idea: when offered material wealth by Yama, Nachiketas rejects it, recognizing that wealth is fleeting and cannot bring lasting happiness.
• The Vedic sages did not entirely reject material life, recognizing that people need to live well. The Rig Veda prayer, asking for riches that cause prosperity for all, emphasizes a balanced, whole life that includes right living and well-being.
• Infinite happiness in the living state is impossible, according to the Ishavasyopanishad as summarized by Sri Aurobindo. The existence of I and you sustains hatred, covetousness, war, sin, and misery, making a materialistic Paradise on earth unattainable.
• Material schemes for happiness based on equal division or common possession of goods cannot eliminate greed and hate. These will persist, whether between individuals or communities.
• Sri Aurobindo suggests that true happiness comes from seeing oneself as part of society: recognizing one’s Self in all creatures and vice versa. This forms the foundation of religion, love, patriotism, philanthropy, and humanity.
• Selfishness is rooted in mistaking the body for the Self and seeking gross, transient pleasures instead of the bliss of the true Self.
• The individual-in-society approach of ancient Indian philosophy emphasizes a balance between individual and societal importance, avoiding extremes.
• These ideas, from Vedic and Upanishadic texts, shaped later philosophical and legal thinking and influenced ordinary masses as ideals, even if not always practiced.
• By the Gupta period, luxury was associated with kings and merchant princes, while simplicity and purity remained ideals for the common man, as observed by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang in the 7th century AD.

HOW TO ACHIEVE HAPPINESS: ETHICAL SYSTEMS

• Ethical systems developed from the recognition that human beings cannot pursue happiness egotistically and that some conditions must guide its pursuit. These systems emerged from a belief in a moral code, often seen as of divine or transcendental origin.
• Both in the West and India, philosophical and religious texts aimed at guiding individuals toward a purposeful life, with a focus on their duties, potential, and role in society.
• Religion and ethics are distinct but interact: religion involves a mystical experience, a philosophical system, and a set of rituals, while ethical practices were broadly shared across different sects, including Buddhism and Jainism.
• Over time, ethical writings shifted from broad principles of good and bad to more specific dos and don’ts as societies grew more complex. This is evident in both Western and Indian traditions, comparing early Vedic and Upanishadic texts to later smritis and Dharmasastras.
• Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle sought to analyze concepts like good, right, and just, aiming to elevate common notions of happiness. They distinguished between hedonistic happiness (self-pleasure) and eudaemonistic happiness (a life worth living).
• Aristotle emphasized practical ethics, stressing that individuals must not just know about goodness but also possess and use it. His ethics included lists of vices to avoid and virtues to cultivate, supported by systems of good upbringing, laws, and punishments.
• In Greece, spreading knowledge of the good was seen as enough to ensure moral conduct, while Roman thinkers codified right behavior into legal systems. Early Christian ethics also established clear distinctions between right and wrong.
• In India, early dissemination of ethical ideas occurred through preceptors, but later (post 300 BC), law codes were prepared. Ethical behavior was encouraged, particularly charity, while hoarding wealth was discouraged. The Rig Veda praises generosity and warns against hardening one’s heart against those in need.
• The Upanishads focused on finding the Self through meditation and abstract speculation, with occasional mention of ethical precepts. The Isa Upanishad emphasizes renunciation and non-covetousness, while the Taittiriya Upanishad advises proper conduct, urging truth, duty, and welfare.
• As societies grew more complex, ethical codes became more detailed. The Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras, authored by lawgivers like Manu and Yajnavalkya, provided precise instructions for daily life, including guidelines for money-lending and interest rates.
• Comprehensive texts like Bhatta Lakshmidhara’s Krtyakalpataru detailed the public and private duties of individuals. Epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata also offered ethical guidance, with the Bhagavad Gita and the Santi Parva advising on personal and social organization.
• Though the Srutis (Vedas) were considered the ultimate source of Dharma, in practice, the Smritis (legal texts) became the authority on Dharma. These texts varied across time and were applied to address specific problems, though some eternal principles were widely accepted, such as non-injury to life, control over passions, and the restraint of pleasures.
• The caste system was embedded in these legal codes, assigning specific duties to different castes. This division of society was similar to the views of Plato and Aristotle, who also did not see individuals as identical. Exceptions, like apadharma, allowed some flexibility under extraordinary circumstances.
• The Sadharanadharma (universal duties) applied to all, while Swadharma (caste-specific duties) were defined based on one’s birth, with injunctions for rites (acara), dealings (Vyavahara), and expiation (Prayaschitta).
• The Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras provide detailed descriptions of the duties of the four castes and four stages of life, as well as rules on religious ceremonies, food, women, property, sins, and penances. They also outline public duties like monarchical responsibilities, taxation, inheritance, and punishment for crimes.
• Alongside caste-specific duties (Swadharma), there are universal duties (Sadharanadharma) for all, including principles like non-violence, truthfulness, and generosity.
• Buddhist ethics identify vices like covetousness, hatred, and ignorance, and promote virtues such as determination, truthfulness, and equanimity. Jain ethics, centered on non-violence (ahimsa), stress humility and the avoidance of arrogance based on intelligence, family, or physical strength.
• Ancient Indian texts emphasize Dharma as the path of virtue and righteousness, combining lawgiver authority with conscience. Similar virtues and vices appear across cultures, including in Greek philosophy, Christian ethics, and Indian law. These systems aimed to ensure order and happiness in society.

ECONOMICS AS A SUBSET OF ETHICS

• Ancient Greek philosophers and Indian lawgivers both viewed economics as a subset of ethics and politics, focusing on human happiness and the ultimate ideal of life.
• Aristotle emphasized the connection between ethics, politics, and happiness, discussing economics in the context of household management. His aim was not to develop modern economic theories but to reconstruct Greek society and address the scarcity of resources.
• Greek thinkers advocated for moderation in wealth acquisition, seeing excess wealth as harmful. Plato supported a hierarchical society but warned against tyranny and exploitation.
• Christian theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, aimed to limit material desires while promoting the ethical regulation of wealth distribution through norms like just price and usury.
• In ancient India, economics was closely intertwined with ethics, as evident in texts like the Arthasastra and Dharmasastra. The four ends of life—Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha—were interconnected, with Dharma serving as the foundation for socio-economic relationships.
• Kautilya’s Arthasastra, although focused on realpolitik, also incorporated ethical principles, showing that economic and political policies were not entirely separate from moral considerations.
• Arthasastra emphasizes the balance between spiritual good, material well-being, and pleasure while avoiding spiritual evil and material loss. It emerged during a time of increasing social complexity in India, necessitating new rules to address conflicts between wealth and other human objectives.
• Artha in the fourfold classification of human ends is commonly translated as wealth or material well-being. The term varta referred to economic activities like agriculture, animal husbandry, and barter, akin to Aristotle’s Oeconomia.
• Kautilya’s Arthasastra encompasses not only economic and political matters but also what we now call political economy and government policy.
• The Indian lawgivers did not advocate for an ascetic life throughout one’s life. Instead, they emphasized the need for material resources in the first three stages of life: Brahmacharya, Grihastya, and Vanaprasta.
• Renunciation (Sanyasa) was reserved for old age, and deliberate poverty was considered sinful, except for those pursuing ultimate transcendent truth.
• Material wealth was deemed essential for charity, fulfilling one’s duties, and maintaining household well-being. The Mahabharata repeatedly stresses the importance of acquiring wealth by virtuous means.
• Virtue and wealth are seen as symbiotic, where riches support the practice of virtue, and virtue helps maintain wealth.
• When there is a conflict between dharmasastra and arthasastra, ethics (dharma) should take precedence over economic concerns.
• Wealth was classified as white (Sukla), dark-white (Sabala), and black (Krsna). White wealth came from sacred knowledge, valor, austerities, or inheritance. Dark-white wealth came from commerce, tillage, and artistic performance. Black wealth included gains from bribery, fraud, or robbery.
• Desire is a core motivator in economic activities but requires self-restraint to avoid negative consequences. While desire is not entirely condemned in Artha, excessive desire, or covetousness, leads to societal harm, as exemplified in the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
• The principle of Aparigraha (limiting attachment to wealth) is promoted in Jain texts, advocating reduced desires for spiritual harmony.
• Self-restraint is a key virtue in ancient Indian thought, linked to happiness and spiritual peace.
• Economic activities were essential, but a balance was needed to avoid chaos. Fear and punishments were tools suggested by lawgivers like Kautilya and Manu to control human greed.
• The focus of ancient Indian economic thought was not on growth but on conservation, sharing, and preventing injustice, recognizing the challenges posed by scarcity and human nature.