Feeling Happy and Being Happy Aren't the Same

Can you be wrong about whether you are happy? This seems a silly question. If you feel happy, you are happy. If you don’t feel happy, you’re not. That’s what happiness means. There is no objective standard by which to measure it.

But perhaps this isn’t the complete picture. While happiness is generally understood as a mood, there are other ways to understand happiness. Let’s look at an analogy, health. We know that it is possible to be wrong about our state of health. You may feel great but be on death’s door. People drop dead of heart attacks without warning. You go for your annual check-up with no complaints only to have blood tests returned with bad news.

So we can be mistaken about whether we are healthy. Being healthy doesn’t turn on my feelings. Tests are often more reliable than self-reports. There is a difference between feeling healthy and being healthy, although they may coincide. Can the same distinction be made between feeling happy and being happy?

The answer depends upon the definition of happiness, just as what being healthy means depends upon how we define health. Before the advent of modern medicine, many disabilities now considered curable were commonplace. What was once healthy for a forty-year-old is the standard of healthy for a sixty-year-old. Public health and modern medicine have led society to redefine what it means to be healthy.

If happiness is defined as a mood, then self-reports are all there is. Feeling happy is what we mean by being happy, so happiness is defined subjectively. This notion of happiness is devoid of content: whatever elevates moods is a source of happiness is. It can be success, physical pleasure, being famous, taking drugs. It doesn’t matter.

But you can’t talk about health without content. Nor should we about happiness without looking at the bigger picture. Consider this: exercise is good for your health but too much can kill you. You need to eat to stay healthy but there are foods that you shouldn’t eat or should eat in moderation.

In the same way, there are things that make you feel happy but may lead to a state of unhappiness. You feel happy in the moment but you mistakenly think this is all there is to happiness. Happiness, like health, needs to be understood in context. Just as you need to take into consideration a person’s age to judge their health, the future needs to be taken into account in order to determine happiness.

So here’s my understandings of the nature of happiness: happiness is subjectively experienced but not everything that causes us to feel happy makes us happy over a lifetime. It is possible to feel happy for the moment but not be happy, as, for example, most alcoholics know. The opposite is also true. We can feel unhappy, at the loss of a loved one, but still be happy as we look on a life that has been filled with love.

While happiness is experienced inwardly, its sources are mainly external and found in relationships that sustain us. These relationships are not confined to family but include how we relate to work, our communities and the environment. When we treat them well, the likelihood that our deep and abiding interest in being loved and cared for is increased.

It is mistaken to think of happiness as subjective or objective, completely inner or totally outer. It is inter-subjective and relational. No one can make you happy without your consent and neither can you be happy in damaged or corrupt relationships.

It is important to feel happy but also to recognize that feelings are fleeting. More important is to think of happiness the way we do health—there is a good reason to eat your spinach today for good health tomorrow, but you can also enjoy sweets in small measure even though they contribute nothing to long-term well being.