Sekadar menambah rujukan: Peter Singer ini guru besar Etika dan Moral,
seorang ateis (ia jelas mengaku demikian), dan vegetarian (karena tidak mau
ikut merusak keseimbangan hayati). Yah, untuk dijadikan bahan renungan saja
(bahwa seorang ateis dapat juga memiliki integritas moral). Kita akan lihat
apakah setelah tahu bahwa ia seorang ateis, pandangan tentangnya akan
berubah. 
KM
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: ppiindia@yahoogroups.com
Date: 07/31/06 09:57:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ppiindia] Happiness, Money, and Giving It Away (Peter Singer)
 
Happiness, Money, and Giving It Away
Peter Singer

Would you be happier if you were richer? Many people believe that they would
be. But research conducted over many years suggests that greater wealth
implies greater happiness only at quite low levels of income. People in the
United States, for example, are, on average, richer than New Zealanders, but
they are not happier. More dramatically, people in Austria, France, Japan,
and Germany appear to be no happier than people in much poorer countries,
like Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines. 
Comparisons between countries with different cultures are difficult, but the
same effect appears within countries, except at very low income levels, such
as below $12,000 annually for the US. Beyond that point, an increase in
income doesn’t make a lot of difference to people’s happiness. Americans are
richer than they were in the 1950’s, but they are not happier. Americans in
the middle-income range today – that is, a family income of $50,000-$90,000
– have a level of happiness that is almost identical to well-off Americans,
with a family income of more than $90,000. 
Most surveys of happiness simply ask people how satisfied they are with
their lives. We cannot place great confidence in such studies, because this
kind of overall “life satisfaction” judgment may not reflect how much people
really enjoy the way they spend their time. 
My Princeton University colleague Daniel Kahneman and several co-researchers
tried to measure people’s subjective well-being by asking them about their
mood at frequent intervals during a day. In an article published in Science
on June 30, they report that their data confirm that there is little
correlation between income and happiness. On the contrary, Kahneman and his
colleagues found that people with higher incomes spent more time in
activities that are associated with negative feelings, such as tension and
stress. Instead of having more time for leisure, they spent more time at and
commuting to work. They were more often in moods that they described as
hostile, angry, anxious, and tense. 
Of course, there is nothing new in the idea that money does not buy
happiness. Many religions instruct us that attachment to material
possessions makes us unhappy. The Beatles reminded us that money can’t buy
us love. Even Adam Smith, who told us that it is not from the butcher’s
benevolence that we get our dinner, but from his regard for his
self-interest, described the imagined pleasures of wealth as “a deception”
(though one that “rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of
mankind”). 
Nevertheless, there is something paradoxical about this. Why do governments
all focus on increasing per capita national income? Why do so many of us
strive to obtain more money, if it won’t make us happier? 
Perhaps the answer lies in our nature as purposive beings. We evolved from
beings who had to work hard to feed themselves, find a mate, and raise
children. For nomadic societies, there was no point in owning anything that
one could not carry, but once humans settled down and developed a system of
money, that limit to acquisition disappeared. 
Accumulating money up to a certain amount provides a safeguard against lean
times, but today it has become an end in itself, a way of measuring one’s
status or success, and a goal to fall back on when we can think of no other
reason for doing anything, but would be bored doing nothing. Making money
gives us something to do that feels worthwhile, as long as we do not reflect
too much on why we are doing it. 
Consider, in this light, the life of the American investor Warren Buffett.
For 50 years, Buffett, now 75, has worked at accumulating a vast fortune.
According to Forbes magazine , he is the second wealthiest person in the
world, after Bill Gates, with assets of $42 billion. Yet his frugal
lifestyle shows that he does not particularly enjoy spending large amounts
of money. Even if his tastes were more lavish, he would be hard-pressed to
spend more than a tiny fraction of his wealth. 
>From this perspective, once Buffett earned his first few millions in the
1960’s, his efforts to accumulate more money can easily seem completely
pointless. Is Buffett a victim of the “deception” that Adam Smith described,
and that Kahneman and his colleagues have studied in more depth? 
Coincidentally, Kahneman’s article appeared the same week that Buffett
announced the largest philanthropic donation in US history – $30 billion to
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and another $7 billion to other
charitable foundations. Even when the donations made by Andrew Carnegie and
John D. Rockefeller are adjusted for inflation, Buffett’s is greater. 
At a single stroke, Buffett has given purpose to his life. Since he is an
agnostic, his gift is not motivated by any belief that it will benefit him
in an afterlife. What, then, does Buffett’s life tell us about the nature of
happiness? 
Perhaps, as Kahneman’s research would lead us to expect, Buffett spent less
of his life in a positive mood than he would have if, at some point in the
1960’s, he had quit working, lived on his assets, and played a lot more
bridge. But, in that case, he surely would not have experienced the
satisfaction that he can now rightly feel at the thought that his hard work
and remarkable investment skills will, through the Gates Foundation, help to
cure diseases that cause death and disability to billions of the world’s
poorest people. Buffett reminds us that there is more to happiness than
being in a good mood. 
** Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and the
author, with Jim Mason, of The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. 
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006. http://www.project-syndicate
org/commentary/singer13


---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg 
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi 
4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Kirim email ke