Krasemann - Blog Post 12

In the beginning of Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen brings up survival rates in his discussion of freedom. In the first chapter, he concentrates on “very elementary freedom: the ability to survive rather than succumb to premature mortality” (24). Sen talks about survival rates in various countries and compares them to black males in the United States. The black males have the lowest survival rates of the four populations he considers: U.S. white males, Chinese males, Kerala (India) males, and U.S. black males. This indicates that “American blacks suffer from relative deprivation in terms of income per head vis-à-vis American whites” (22). Compared to American whites, American blacks appear impoverished. Not only that, but the American blacks have generally much higher incomes than the Indians and Chinese males who outlive them.

 

Sen’s point introduces interesting concepts of freedom and happiness. It seems clear that most people wish to live as long as possible, and that they may achieve the most happiness from living as long as possible. Dying young would, therefore, inhibit an individual’s potential to achieve more happiness. However, the content of an individual’s life also plays a significant role in happiness. Sen tries to make the point that you would think that American blacks would live longer under the American system as richer individuals compared to the Indian and Chinese systems. But this is not the case. This point makes me consider what role freedom plays in relation to happiness.

 

Historically, it has been proven that global happiness ratings have not drastically increased as we might expect with the introduction of new technologies and overall increases in the standard of living. However, that is not the case. In fact, happiness may have decreased. With the push for liberty as great as ever today, it is interesting to consider whether “enforcing” liberty and freedom has a direct consequence on happiness. It has been proven that the hunter gatherer from tens of thousands of years ago was just as, if not more, happy than the businessman who works 90+ hour weeks to return to his drug-invested penthouse in a limo, stressed out of his mind. How does this make any sense, considering the standard of living?

 

This introduces the concept of whether a system of liberty and freedom, as the one Sen describes in the United States, yields more happiness for individuals than a system with less emphasis on freedom, such as India. Freedom may create opportunity, but with opportunity come responsibilities and stress that may very well yield much lower levels of happiness. Of course, it would be tough to convince the individuals of a free society that their freedom and liberty may in fact be inhibiting their happiness. It is simply an interesting point to ruminate.