In a Boston Globe essay, economist Edward Glaeser argues that happiness should be a goal but not the goal. An excerpt:

“What we know now, however, is that the mistake lies in thinking happiness is the be-all and end-all to judging how effective a municipality is operating for its citizens. In a sense, putting happiness above all else is just as foolish as economists who think money is the only objective or doctors who can’t imagine anything that trumps health. Happiness, money, and health are all good goals, but they are rarely the only things people are striving for.

Because, if quality of life is so important, why do people choose to keep living — and moving — to ‘unhappy’ cities? If people in Rust Belt cities like Milwaukee or Detroit are so dissatisfied, why don’t they just move to a new place where they’d be more happy? Because most humans are willing to sacrifice happiness and satisfaction if the price is right — and we’re probably better off for it.

The debate over whether happiness should be life’s ultimate currency is ancient. Greek philosopher Epicurus opined ‘that pleasure is the end and aim,’ while his contemporary Epictetus countered, ‘What is our nature? To be free, noble, self-respecting . . . We must subordinate pleasure to these principles.’ More recently, Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century British thinker, popularized the notion that humans should maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Kant argued that our goal should not be happiness, which does not automatically follow moral behavior, but rather act so as to be worthy of happiness.

Most people, however, are less theoretical and more practical in terms of what they’re willing to trade off for happiness. In fact, it is better to think of happiness as one utility among many, rather than a supreme desideratum.”