The former king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, has expressed a philosophy of "Gross National Happiness" as a measurement of the success of the country. What is your personal philosophy? Tell us why you believe it could be used to evaluate a country's success.
In my opinion, the people's level of happiness is not always a fair indicator of the country's success because there are many outside factors that could affect "happiness". However, I agree that a country's conditions could potentially impact the happiness of the people to a certain degree. A country's purpose is to serve and protect its people. If the people are living well in comfortable and fearless conditions, then it would increases the probability that the people will be in good moods because there are less troubles to be worried about. For example, the great depression, civil war, and the civil rights movement. During those times, people are in constant worry, fear, and sadness. In such cases, a country's success in serving and protecting its people is low, and the people's level of happiness reflects that. On the other hand, when the country is in good times, the level of happiness does not represent the country's conditions as truly. Other factors such as financial status, marital problems, health issues, family relationships, and psychological problems, could potentially affect the "happiness" of the people. A large proportion of the population is affected by some type of crisis. In these cases, even if the country is doing well overall, the people's happiness level could still be substantially low. I think half of the success of the country should be measured based on how well the government is doing in maintaining social order, regulating economic balance, and keeping peace in foreign affairs. The other half should be measured based on the people's happiness. This way, during good or bad times, the "happiness" overall would be balanced.
In my opinion, the people's level of happiness is not always a fair indicator of the country's success because there are many outside factors that could affect "happiness". However, I agree that a country's conditions could potentially impact the happiness of the people to a certain degree. A country's purpose is to serve and protect its people. If the people are living well in comfortable and fearless conditions, then it would increases the probability that the people will be in good moods because there are less troubles to be worried about. For example, the great depression, civil war, and the civil rights movement. During those times, people are in constant worry, fear, and sadness. In such cases, a country's success in serving and protecting its people is low, and the people's level of happiness reflects that. On the other hand, when the country is in good times, the level of happiness does not represent the country's conditions as truly. Other factors such as financial status, marital problems, health issues, family relationships, and psychological problems, could potentially affect the "happiness" of the people. A large proportion of the population is affected by some type of crisis. In these cases, even if the country is doing well overall, the people's happiness level could still be substantially low. I think half of the success of the country should be measured based on how well the government is doing in maintaining social order, regulating economic balance, and keeping peace in foreign affairs. The other half should be measured based on the people's happiness. This way, during good or bad times, the "happiness" overall would be balanced.
