The aim of the course was to explore the nature of happiness. What does it mean for one’s life to be a
happy one? The answer that we got was “it depends on what you mean by happiness”. It turns out that
there are a number of distinct notions of happiness that all track different things, things that we care
deeply about. The main distinction that we dealt with was the distinction between objective and
subjective happiness, which I used to split the course in two. The first part of the course was on the
science of happiness, which studies subjective happiness. The second part of the course was on the
philosophy of happiness, which studies objective happiness.
Thus, the aim of the final writing assignment is for you to show that you understand the distinction
between subjective and objective happiness. The best way of displaying this understanding is by using
various analyses of happiness and showing how one can be subjectively happy but not objectively happy
and vice versa. In order to do this, you will write a paper that should accomplish the following tasks
(please read the directions carefully):
1. Select some well-known public figure who is widely regarded as happy. Offer a sufficiently rich
description of their lives – enough to provide the following analysis. This should not take more
than one page.
2. Next, identify some aspect(s) of their lives that we know from our readings are strongly
correlated with high life satisfaction. If you don’t know what “life satisfaction” is referring to,
you need to go back and do your readings. This is part of the assignment! I did provide a hint in
the intro above. Looking back at your reading, identify and describe the evidence that we have
that points to a strong correlation. Provide references to our reading(s) and use proper
citations (Either MLA or Chicago is fine). [For your discussion, DO NOT talk about Seligman’s
PERMA theory of flourishing.]
3. Finally, reflect on this person’s life and ask yourself whether, from the point of view of any of the
philosophers we have read, this life can be lacking from the point of view of actual well-being.
(Pick just one philosophical view!) That is, would any of the philosophers that we have read
conclude that their life isn’t an ideal one? Having selected a philosopher who would come to this
conclusion, describe this philosopher’s view of actual well-being then explain what this
philosopher would say about the person’s life. Again, you must provide references to our
readings and use proper citations.
Paper details:
4 pages, double-spaced, 12 point times new roman, 1 inch margins
Grading criteria:
1. Description of Person’s Life: You provide a sufficiently rich and clear description of the person’s life. (30
points)
2. Explanation of Correlated Aspect: You explain what aspect of this person’s life is strongly correlated with
high life satisfaction. And Explanation of Empirical Evidence: You accurately and clearly explain the relevant
empirical evidence from our readings. (30 points)
4. Application of Philosophical View: Your paper provides an accurate summary of a philosopher’s view and
shows full understanding of this view when examining the life that you have chosen. (30 points)
5. Clarity and Writing Quality: A paper that is clear, succinct, and well-written. The paper has clearly been
proof-read and is well-structured. Check for typos and grammatical mistakes. (10 points)
