追求幸福是英国政治经济学中一个传统。18世纪功利主义创始人杰里米?边沁(Jeremy Bentham)是对功利主义（utilitarianism，又称效用主义）这么下定义的："所谓效用的原则，是指按照会促进或妨碍利益相关者的幸福——如果是一个群体，就是指这个群体的幸福；如果是某个具体的人，就是指这个人的幸福——的倾向，来赞成或反对任何一项行动……那么，群体的利益是什么？就是构成群体的各个成员的利益的总和。"

　　This principle is not as obvious as it may sound. In Bentham's time it was challenged by many rival principles; for instance, judging actions by their contribution to French glory or the furthering of the Prussian state. Nearer to home it was challenged by the Aristotelian eudemonia, which valued happiness only so far as it contributed to the philosophical idea of a good life.

　　这一原则不如听起来那么理所当然。在边沁所处的时代，它就受到了许多其他原则的挑战；比如说，根据为了法国的荣耀或者普鲁士国家疆土扩大所做的贡献来衡量行为。更厉害的是亚里士多德学派的幸福观对它构成的挑战，该派认为幸福只体现在完善哲学观念中的美好生活。

　　Meanwhile Bentham's followers worried about how to measure happiness, eventually interpreting it as the opportunity to satisfy desires as revealed by people's choices in the marketplace or in voting. This did not satisfy the high-minded; but at least it set a high value on individual choice and did not seek to peer into men's souls.

　　同时，边沁的追随者们为如何衡量幸福感到焦虑，最终他们将幸福诠释为满足意愿——人们在市场中或者在投票中的选择就体现了他们的意愿——的机会。这无法让高尚的人感到满意；但它起码认为个人选择很有价值，而并未企图深入探索人的灵魂。

　　Critics of such utilitarianism saw it as making a fetish of gross domestic product. But this was rubbish. Economists have known for a very long time that there are many components of utility not taken into full account in measures of GDP per head. It excludes leisure, the value of work undertaken in the home, environmental harm and benefits. Some have tried to construct more comprehensive human development indices, also covering matters such as literacy, access to clean water and life expectancy. My view has always been that these matters are best considered separately rather than combined in an overall measure that inevitably reflects the personal values of those who draw it up.

　　批评这种功利主义思想的人认为它盲目崇拜国内生产总值(GDP)。但这种批评毫无意义。经济学家们早就清楚，在衡量人均GDP时，在构成效用的所有因子中，还有许多因子没有被充分考虑进去。诸如闲暇时光、家务劳动的价值、以及对环境的利弊。有些人尝试构建更全面的人类发展指标，也把识字率、能否得到清洁用水和预期寿命等方面包括进去。我一贯的观点是，这些方面最好要分开考虑，不要放入一个总体指标当中一起衡量——这个指标反映出的必然是指标创建者的个人价值观。

　　But a more direct challenge to all these ways of thinking has been launched by a new breed of social scientists, who claim to measure happiness directly and to base public policy on the findings. The principal method of investigation for this branch of research is the questionnaire. People are asked to rate their happiness, satisfaction with life and so on. David Cameron, never to be outdone when it comes to a gimmick, has asked the UK Office for National Statistics to investigate the area and the first results are now available.

　　但是，一个新的社会科学门派对所有这些思想发出了更直接的挑战，他们认为应当直接去衡量幸福并且通过研究结果制定公共政策。这一派的主要调查研究方法是调查问卷。他们要求人们对自己的幸福感、生活满意度等方面打分。在搞噱头方面无人能敌的戴维?卡梅伦(David Cameron)，已要求英国国家统计局(ONS)调查国民幸福感，而初步结果现在已经揭晓。

　　With typical British caution, the official statisticians avoid the word happiness and ask about "life satisfaction". The responses are transformed into a scale from 1 to 10. They are presented as a complement to rather than a substitute for conventional economic indicators. The results, it has to be said, are not very startling.

　　带着典型的英国式谨慎，官方统计人员没有使用"幸福感"一词，而是询问"生活满意度"。答案设计为1至10分的范围。其作用是对常规的经济指标做出补充，而不是对其取而代之。不得不说，调查结果并不十分令人惊讶。

　　Mean ratings for nearly all groups are seven point something. The main exceptions with a lower rating include, sadly, "Black, African, Caribbean and Black British". Divorced and separated people do less well than either single people or those in partnerships. Unsurprisingly the unemployed also score less than seven. But occupation makes little difference. "Managers and directors" seem only slightly more satisfied with life than those in "elementary occupations". Nor are there great regional differences – though, for what it is worth, the highest scores come from Northern Ireland.

　　几乎所有群体的分数中值都为7分左右。令人遗憾的是，得分较低的主要例外群体是"黑人、非洲籍、加勒比籍、英籍黑人"。离婚或分居的人得分低于单身或有伴侣的人。意料中的是，失业的人得分也低于7分。但不同职业人群间的得分差距非常小。"管理者和董事"群体对生活的满意度似乎仅略高于那些"处于初级岗位"的人群。地区之间的分值差距也不大，尽管不论是否说明问题，得分最高的地区是北爱尔兰。

　　All this is innocent enough; and if the official statisticians pursue their research they may find something more interesting. It is what may lie at the end of the road that is more worrying. Aldous Huxley sounded a warning in his 1932 novel Brave

　　这一切真是十足的天真；如果官方统计人员在调研时再深入一些，就可能会发现一些有趣的结论。而最终极的结果可能更加令人担忧。1932年，奥尔德斯?赫胥黎(Aldous Huxley)便在小说《美丽新世界》(Brave New World)中发出了警告。在这本小说中，人都是有选择性的孵化器培育出来的，分为"阿尔法(α)"、"贝塔(β)"、"伽玛(γ)"、"德尔塔(δ)"、 "爱普西隆(ε)"五种人，他们都安心于自己的命运。一旦出现幸福感减弱的蛛丝马迹，就给他们服用一种名叫索麻(soma)的麻醉药。

　　New World. People are bred in selective incubators to be alphas, betas, gammas, deltas and epsilons, and to be content with their lot. At the slightest sign of waning happiness, they are given a top-up drug, soma.

　　如果我们从世俗而非宗教的角度思考这个问题，赫胥黎笔下的"美丽新世界"到底有什么不对呢？问题是我们没有索麻这种东西。据我所知，世界上不存在没有副作用或后遗症的幸福药片。

　　If we think the matter through from a secular rather than a religious point of view, what is really wrong with Huxley's Brave New World? It is that there is no such thing as soma. To the best of my knowledge, there are still no happiness drugs devoid of side or after effects.

　　我们假设有吧。约翰?斯图尔特?密尔(John Stuart Mill)有句名言：做痛苦的苏格拉底，胜过做一头快乐的猪。我一直暗中对那头猪感到同情。然而，可能我们的幸运之处在于，不必在两者之间进行选择。

　　Suppose that there were. John Stuart Mill famously said that it is better to be Socrates unhappy rather than a pig happy. I have always had a sneaking sympathy for the pig. However, perhaps fortunately, we do not have that choice.

　　就让英国国家统计局去进行满意度调查吧。但归根结底，英国政府在维持公共秩序、保障国家安全、为社会繁荣创造条件以及缩小收入与财富差距等方面履行好自己的传统职责，就能够以间接手段为增进国民幸福做出最大的贡献。我们还有很长的路要走。