2. 考研
  3. Happiness is fashionable these days. Yet should we accept the common view that the new "science" of happiness has cemented the s

Happiness is fashionable these days. Yet should we accept the common view that the new "science" of happiness has cemented the s

admin2012-07-06  112
问题     Happiness is fashionable these days. Yet should we accept the common view that the new "science" of happiness has cemented the superiority of Scandinavian social democracy over Anglo-Saxon liberalism? The answer is: No.
    Richard Layard of the London School of Economics produced an elegant and influential exposition of the new doctrine two years ago. What is Professor Layard arguing? First, happiness is the sole goal of human activity. Second, happiness is measurable. Third, we know what makes people happy and unhappy. Finally, policy should aim at achieving the greatest happiness.
    One can address the broad conclusions of this analysis. Its most important negative conclusion is that, beyond a certain threshold, extra wealth does not make us any happier. In any society, richer people tend to be happier than poorer ones, but the proportion of people saying they are very happy does not seem to rise over time. The explanation for this is partly that relative position matters and partly that we become used to prosperity. The positive conclusion is that we know what does make us happy: good family relationships; a sound financial situation, work, a trustworthy community, freedom from chronic pain and mental illness, and personal liberty.
    Consider these points more closely. First, the analysis does do not show that generous welfare states do better than less generous ones. Second, the results do not merely show that a rising gross national product may fail to raise happiness. They also show that increases in the size of the welfare state have also failed to increase reported happiness.
    What is under challenge, then, is modernity itself, not a competitive market economy a-lone. Prof Layard makes that clear in his comments on the decline of community and the family and the rise of individualism and crime.
    However, Layard’s conclusions are: tame the rat race by taxing excessive effort. He argues that higher income is a route to higher status. But higher status for some is always lower status for others. So this is what economists call an "externality". The externality should be taxed, just like any other form of "pollution".
    One answer to that is that effort is already taxed quite heavily in western societies. An-other is that if monetary status is discouraged, people will seek status on other and often more damaging dimensions, power being a particularly dangerous example. Yet another answer is that it is far from obvious why differences in status become increasingly disturbing as income differentials increase. The fact that someone is one’s boss or has a more prestigious position in society is a big enough difference on its own. Finally, is it not evident that the search for status also has positive externalities — innovations of all kinds, for example?
    I also see little here to undermine core principles of classical liberalism: people should be largely free to make their own choices, mindful of their obligations to other; and the state should focus on remedying harms, while avoiding adding to them. But governments cannot make us happy. Happiness is something we have to pursue. [506 words]
On which of the following does the author agrees with Professor Layard?
选项 A、Extra wealth beyond a certain threshold does not make us any happier.
B、People nowadays are too used to prosperity to feel happiness.
C、Happiness involves many more factors other than economic status.
D、The government should aim at achieving the greatest happiness.
答案C
解析 本题考查作者观点。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/50p4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)