What is Worthwhile?

I have for some time been struggling to determine what, in life, are ‘worthwhile’ activities. What should a person do on a daily basis, and on a lifelong basis, in order to ensure they did not waste too terribly much of their life? The usual answer one hears is, “Do whatever makes you happy.” And for many, that’s good enough. But to my mind, this insists upon a further examination.

What does it mean for something to be worthwhile? As I am not religious, it cannot be defined as simply as behaving in accordance with a holy text, and I also cannot rely on the reward of an afterlife; all principles must be grounded in the mortal realm. Because the pursuit of a worthwhile life is primarily borne from dreadfully accurate understanding of its transience, a perfectly worthwhile action must be one that sparks no regret. One must believe in retrospect that some action was by no means a waste of time, in order for that action to be considered worthwhile. However, this mindset is perhaps putting too much emphasis on the future self’s opinion. The present self is just as important as the future self, or perhaps more so, for the present self certainly exists, while the future self may not. The future self may also hold different values than we do now, yet we cannot act based on values we don’t currently hold. We must take actions that neither borrow satisfaction from nor loan it to the future, but strive instead to maximize the overall satisfaction produced by those actions across our remaining lifespan. We will define a ‘worthwhile action’ as such: one which leads to the greatest overall satisfaction, both in the present moment, and over the course of all future moments. If you’d like, you may think of it as the integral of satisfaction over the lifespan.

It is not obvious that simply doing what makes you happy is the ideal goal of life. It may be possible to live a happy yet vapid life, only to realize in old age that you should have lived more meaningfully. The initial happiness may be high, but the integral may quickly taper. Even if Happiness is the ideal goal, it needs further elaboration. There are a number of modes of temporary happiness which may not lead to an overall maximal happiness. For example, a selfish or immoral happiness may be available to the present self, yet because the future self is inherently judgmental of its past, that brief happiness turns to regret after some time. We must live up to our future self’s expectations, lest we later soil our happiness with disappointment. It is a similar dilemma when seeking Greatness: giving up the happiness of the present for the pride and satisfaction of Greatness in the future, which may or may not maximize Happiness over the lifespan. Due to these temporal considerations, “Do what makes you happy” should be amended to “Do what will make you happy,” applied to the entire lifetime, so that we are not arguing against the stupidity of presentism, such as blowing all your money to make yourself happy now, nor against futurism, in which you wait for your life to begin until the day it ends. Instead we will take the phrase as people likely intend: “Do what will maximize your happiness across your reasonably expected lifespan.” Becoming a doctor, for example, is probably a worthwhile action if being a doctor is one of your life goals, though attending medical school, while worthwhile by association, is unlikely to make you happy at all.

But in any case, we must start somewhere. Let’s begin by testing whether “Do what makes you happy” (with its revisions above) is a satisfactory heuristic. If we are to maximize satisfaction, shall we maximize happiness? In a sort of proof-by-contradiction, we can break down exactly what the imperative “Do what makes you happy” (DWMYH) entails, and take those to their logical conclusions, to see if they make sense. If any of its parts do not hold true, its entirety cannot hold true. DWMYH has a few implicit assumptions:

1. Happiness is the most worthwhile goal to strive toward in life.
2. The sort of life that will bring you happiness is knowable to you.
3. Happiness is something that can be attained through your own actions.

DWMYH must imply all three of these things. If it does not imply (1), then it is bad advice for determining what to do in life; if it does not imply (2), then the advice is not able to be followed; if it does not imply (3), then the actions you take make no difference, and thus the advice is saying nothing. In accordance with logical technique, if we can show that any one of these assumptions are incorrect, then the entire premise must be incorrect, while if we can truly agree with all three, then the premise immediately finds itself on solid ground. We will thus begin with the first assumption.

In order to prove or falsify “Happiness is the most worthwhile goal to strive toward in life”, henceforth labeled (1), it at first seemed to me that we need to identify what happiness is. However, upon further reflection I don’t believe that is necessary. It is enough to understand that each person will have their own unique definition of happiness as it relates to themselves. So long as we understand that each person is made happy by certain things and unhappy by certain other things, and that those things cannot be objectively correct or incorrect, but instead are always subjectively correct for that person, we can examine (1) to see where it may lead. The only vague definition of happiness I will put forth from here is this: by happiness, I do not mean the brief joy of a moment, nor pleasure, nor contentment. With a capital letter, Happiness refers to the long-term, relatively stable emotional undercurrent that a person may be in the state of. This Happiness is not generally disturbed by minor negative events; one can have a bad day, and simultaneously understand that one is still Happy, in life and in general. We must be careful not to conflate Happiness with the pleasures and joys of moments. With this being said, might there be examples of seeking one’s Happiness that the layman would condemn, though it remains congruent with DWMYH?

Examination §

With this in mind, let’s imagine a man who is, he claims, perfectly happy, yet his actions would be condemned or pitied by today’s layman. The obvious example is that of the unjust man, whose happiness comes at the expense of others. This man is brought pure joy by bringing about misfortune. Does that mean, then, that a life of criminal acts and self enrichment is truly the most worthwhile way for him to live? A man could spend his days doing nothing but masturbating and watching Friends, 16 hours each day, always with a smile. He’s doing what makes him happy. Is that the most worthwhile use of his life? If not, why not?

Now, at this point there will doubtless be some readers who genuinely answer, “Yes, because he enjoys it, all of those things are the most worthwhile things for him to do, for as long as he continues to enjoy it, even if he does nothing else but steal, kick puppies and masturbate for 75 years and then drop dead.” To you readers, I have no further argument, and you will find no grand insight further down the page. For the rest of us — and I believe most people fall into this group — whether we can articulate the reasoning or not, we feel that these modes of life are clearly inferior to some other mode. It seems the premise (1) cannot hold. But why?

It is clear that the common man — I do believe my thought process here is common — holds within himself some standard of a worthy lifestyle which has certain requisites. When looking at the pitiable or unjust man, he feels living that way is depraved; he knows there is a more noble way. Yet ask him to describe how best to live and you will get, at best, examples (which must not be mistaken for definitions), and at worst, those same sorts of platitudes which we’re in the process of examining. At the same time, this judgmental man will frequently, if not invariably, enjoy and partake in some actions that another judgmental man will find foolish, and defend these actions against judgment.

I theorize that we judgmental men have a natural revulsion against certain forms of happiness, not because we are imbued with almighty discernment of Truth, but because we cannot abide such forms ourselves. Perhaps they clash with our morality / religion, e.g. crime, or perhaps their Happiness is so different to our own that we believe the person to be mistaken about their own emotional state. “He’s not really happy, he’s only coping with his inferior life,” we may think. Since there is no possibility of their mode of life engendering our Happiness, we, in our arrogance, pity their deluded choices. Sometimes we are right… but only sometimes.

The counter-theory to this posits that no, in fact there is some inherent mode of living which is inferior to some other, despite any positive feelings on the part of the practitioner. I thought this for quite some time. But I could not come to grips with a rational framework by which to make this judgment. In order to judge a lifestyle, or anything, you must begin with a set of values, and see how closely that lifestyle or thing matches those values. While there are many such values that I could choose to base my judgment on, whether it be Happiness, Virtue, Greatness, etc., there is no good reason why those values should apply to others. Regardless of which value I choose, if I adhere to that value system, what I’m really maximizing in life is not that specific value, but instead the concept of living in accordance with those same values, i.e. Congruence. I can see no argument outside the spiritual realm for why any value should be more sought after than Congruence. An action congruent with one’s values can not possibly lead to dissatisfaction, and so thus cannot possibly fail to be worthwhile. Likewise, an action at odds with one’s values may lead to pleasure, but it cannot lead to satisfaction or Happiness; if it does seem to, it means that the true value at hand was pleasure, not whatever value was spurned.

If my theory holds, then there is little rational argument to be made against the ostensibly happy life the pitied lead. If we must disregard morality and spirituality — and we must, for without religion, morals become subjective — then we are beholden to the idea that any Happiness which is claimed must be taken at face value and believed to be Happiness. So how does this relate to (1)? Well, we have so far failed to show that certain forms of Happiness, as seen in others, are not inferior to any other form. But what of the Happiness we see in ourselves? Are we to discard our own morality, our own standard? I argue that no, we can no more seek Happiness by disregarding our morality than we can seek a fish by disregarding the water. Happiness must closely be linked with Congruence. They are not the same, for a man may be living in accordance with his values yet be starving, while he could instead be living in accordance to his values and be well-fed, and only the latter man would be Happy. But the reverse is not true: a man cannot be Happy while failing to live in accordance with his values. In brief, Congruence is a prerequisite to Happiness.

But what if, you may ask, one could more easily become happy if their values were not so strict? Would it not be most worthwhile, then, to disavow your convictions, and make your happiness far easier to attain? As you have changed your values, you will not fail to be congruent. Well, yes, but in reality it is not possible to modify your values consciously in this way. Just as one cannot choose to wholeheartedly believe in fairies, a just man cannot choose to value a life of crime. By trying to, he would simply arrive at regret. I might go so far as to argue that values are inherently immutable (as an adult), and if they did seem to mutate, they were not true values, but only some transient opinions. And to the unjust man who truly values others’ misery, he too should live congruently in that fashion.

So far, in the examination of whether Happiness is the best goal to seek, we have established this: that Happiness requires Congruence with one’s own values; that one’s own values are entirely subjective; that Happiness can thus be attained by potentially any action at all; that a worthwhile life requires living in accordance with one’s values. What remains is to answer whether this happiness is worthwhile. There seems to be no argument that Congruence is worthwhile; after all, how can one value a mode of living more than the mode of living that embodies one’s values? But within Congruence, there are multiple things one could seek other than Happiness: one might seek greatness, power, revenge, altruism, none of which necessarily bring with it happiness. It’s easy to imagine someone who values providing for their children more than their own happiness, to the extent that the provision goes beyond the happiness from seeing them prosper. To that person, they are living congruently with their value of family, and they are satisfied, and doing otherwise would… bring them more happiness? Well of course not. Doing otherwise could not bring them more happiness. They would be miserable, knowing they abandoned their family values for selfish reasons. I reiterate: no Happiness can be had without Congruence. And I draw from this example the further theory that Congruence leads to the happiest possible life. Yes, it may be that your values are ill-suited to your own happiness, but nevertheless they cannot usually be changed. Living congruently is the best chance you have at happiness. Though they are separate things, I believe seeking Congruence will lead you to the same place as seeking Happiness. Or perhaps they are the same thing, and it is simply true that Congruence is the more precise definition of Happiness — I’m not sure the distinction matters here. Thus for the purposes of deciding the worthwhile life, because Congruence is the most worthwhile way of living, so too is Happiness. I affirm that (1) is indeed true (though perhaps for reasons not originally thought).

Now for an examination of (2), “The sort of life that will bring you happiness is knowable to you.” To rephrase with what we learned above, “The sort of life congruent with your values is knowable to you.” I don’t believe it’s as well known as it seems. How many of us are unhappy, yet don’t inherently understand that we are living in discord with our values? If you’ve never felt happiness, or the times you’ve felt it are irreproducible, or you don’t know how to bring it about, then (2) cannot hold. Of course, you could have a suspicion that something would bring you happiness without having experienced it before, but this cannot be said to be ‘knowing’. You just imagine that it probably would make you happy. This case is really no different from the case where you don’t have any idea. In either case, assuming (1) holds, the best thing to do would be to try many novel experiences, to try to uncover what induces Happiness in you. If we think back to the argument for (1), what this really means is uncovering your own values. Not just the big ones like Justice, but also things like living well, being entertained, and anything else you value. The axiom holds only for some people.

If (2) does not hold for you, then because (1) still does, we must modify DWMYH to be, “Do what you think will lead to discovering happiness,” which is something quite different. That imperative requires experiencing as much as possible, testing one’s values, perhaps going against them to ensure they are not fragile or empty values, much introspection, and generally an active effort at self-discovery. If you’re here, you can hop off the train now, because you will not be able to DWMYH just yet. If (2) still seems to hold for you, but you are not currently in a state of satisfaction, one could argue that you cannot know whether the once-held happiness is reproducible, and so any actions that assume it is are potentially wasted. This is true, but we have to make decisions based on our best information. If we finally arrive at that situation again and realize it is no longer happy for us, then we have simply arrived at the previous case of not-(2), and this is worthwhile in itself, as you have come to understand yourself better and may be better positioned to seek what will actually make you happy. It cannot be a waste of time to understand yourself.

Perhaps the most tenuous axiom, (3), states that, “Happiness is something that can be attained through your own actions.” You might think, “How is this tenuous? We know that happiness comes about through congruence, and how could congruence come about through any means other than one’s own actions? Congruence with one’s own values doesn’t happen to a person, it is brought about by a person’s actions.” While this is true for ethical values, we are speaking of a wider set of values than that. It is possible for someone’s primary value to be “having money”. Does (3) still hold for that case? For everyone? If one of your main values is having some external thing or achievement, then (3) becomes potentially false. At best, it becomes ‘likely’ rather than ‘true’, and the range of likelihood varies based on the individual.

At this, if we insist upon DWMYH, there are only two paths: either attempt to change what you value, or make a best effort attempt to enact circumstances that will make your happiness most likely. The former I’m not sure is possible intentionally for any strongly held value; I am somewhat of the mind that any supposed successes in this are a matter of lying to oneself. I don’t believe you can any more stop valuing money as you can stop valuing justice, if you hold them both to the degree that most hold justice; though perhaps this can work for weakly held values. The latter option, of hoping and striving, is essentially what most people end up doing. Is hoping and striving really worthwhile though? Having defined our values and discovering that they are essentially unattainable, is the pursuit of Congruence still the most worthwhile life, maximizing the integral?

We can’t forget of course that each of us has multiple values, some more easily lived by than others; some values may even conflict. If we cannot attain the most important value, shall we seek the second most important value at the expense of the first? Is futilely seeking the top value worth disregarding the attainable values that hold less importance, but may be fully attainable? Will this not lead to some sense of yearning for that golden value that we left behind? The only answer I have is that for me, striving is its own value, so I must strive. I must strive for the unattainable measure of man, knowing that I will fail, but failing happily in congruence with my values. If you don’t wish to strive, then you must settle; do whatever you must to maximize that Congruence, and be sure to regret nothing.

There are more than a few words here that could be said about trade-offs. Consider the example of a man who values companionship, is single, yet disparages vanity. Is the otherwise non-virtuous (to him) act of vanity to attract a wife worthwhile, if the ends are not even Happiness, but only an increased chance of it? All I will write on the matter is that we are entering the realm of probability, and one must simply gamble on that lifelong integral. We can rephrase DWMYH once more to, “Do what you believe will most likely lead to discovering or maintaining happiness and congruence.”

Conclusion §

We have shown that there is a general truth to DWMYH, though modified. We must, “Do what [we] believe will most likely lead to discovering or maintaining happiness and congruence.” Did we need to write so much to say so little? Longer works were written about less; so be it. There is but one notable implication I’d like to discuss here.

Consider a man whose Happiness depends upon and is sustained by a single value X, who does not have or has not attained X, but could attain it over a somewhat long time-span. Let’s say, for example, X is to have a loving family. Keep in mind this is the man’s locus of happiness; without X (a loving family), the man cannot be happy; with X, the man cannot fail to be happy. Most people will require more than a single thing to obtain this immutable happiness, but for the sake of example let’s consider the monadic man. The man doesn’t have a family, but he reasonably expects to be able to get one in a few years. Over those few years, he takes action to help effect this result, such as saving for a home, taking care of himself, becoming more attractive, etc. Now, during those moments when he is not actively working toward X — for there are only so many things one can do in a day to work toward a goal — does it really matter what he does? Can you imagine for a moment this man attains X, yet thinks, “If only I had learned a language instead of watching TV over these past couple of years, I’d be much happier.” No! He will be happy because of X, and those trifles will have no bearing. Likewise, any action he takes after attaining Happiness does not matter, so long as it does not jeopardize his X, or make him Incongruent. Can it be imagined that, on the man’s deathbed, he looks back on his life with his loving family, full of happiness, and thinks, “Ah, but if only I had practiced tennis more rather than collected stamps, what a regret!” Unthinkable, surely. Any regrets or joys on the deathbed will be centered around X. No action he takes outside of attaining X can really be worthwhile; therefore, as long as the actions don’t hinder X, none are better or worse than the next. The man can play video games after work to relax, or he can collect stamps, or he can do any number of silly, pointless things. It simply does not matter what he does. Why? Because no matter what he does during this time, it will not make him happy — we’ve established he requires a family to be happy. Any fleeting pleasure or joy is not the Happiness we are discussing, so he should simply do what he likes. In short, your hobbies do not matter whatsoever to the worthiness of living, if they are just ways to pass the time, and independent of your true Happiness, as most hobbies are.

This is a rather astonishing conclusion, if it holds. In brief, it means you should pursue your values as much and as closely as possible; but when you inevitably need to do some unrelated things, if only to relax from the pursuit, so long as those things are not Incongruent with your values, you can just do whatever you feel like doing. It has such minuscule effect on the integral, if any, that it’s actually a waste of time to even consider the action. It’s a surrogate activity; one done in place of the activities that matter. We all must indulge in these from time to time, and so long as we do so knowing that they are but distractions from X, we can fruitfully enjoy them without wondering if they’re wasted of time. They are! They all are! Are you feeling guilty for spending time on Instagram when you could have been learning a language? Or is your real guilt because you could have been attaining X but instead did nothing of Value? I think you’ll find it’s the latter. The guilt at avoiding X is justified, but at least identify it correctly. If your choices are among a group of equally (not) worthwhile things, just do whatever you want, it matters not.

I will leave you here, dear reader, knowing precious few have traveled so far as here with me. Seek Congruence; waste little time; make the gamble; value your Values; above all, DWMYH.