LAU44013 LAW AND HAPPINESS

Learning Outcomes

Having successfully completed this module, students should be able to:

• Demonstrate specialised, self-directed knowledge of an area of law through examination of a ‘real-life’ legal research problem or a theme within a research group.
• Collaborate with peers and act in leadership roles.
• Constructively evaluate the work of others.
• Synthesise and evaluate a variety of legal research methods, legal sources, findings and analysis.
• Critically analyse an area of law through independent research.
• Consult with and respond to the needs of research users.
• Effectively communicate research findings.

Module Content

Should law promote happiness? Should it prioritize it over other values such as fairness, justice, or rights? To what extent should law intervene in individuals’ life? For instance, should law override an individual’s choice when that choice is not conducive to her happiness? More generally, what is the relationship between law, choice, and happiness? These questions constitute the core focus of this research group. Going back to Bentham and Mill, the theme traces the lineage of these normative questions to better understand contemporary legal issues associated with state intervention. In particular, the theme provides an opportunity for advanced learning and in-depth research on legal paternalism. Projects can draw on a range of dimensions such as philosophical, economic, regulatory, and/or practical.

Sub-topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The debate between a consequentialist approach to law and its deontological or expressivist counterpart
• Defining happiness
• Measuring happiness
• The relationship between law, welfare, and rights
• Issues surrounding state paternalism and uncertainty
• The (il)legitimate use of behavioural sciences in promoting happiness by means of, for instance, nudges

Recommended Reading List

• Kaplow and Shavell (2001) 'Fairness versus Welfare', Harvard Law Review, 114(4), 961.
• Posner and Sunstein (2010) Law and Happiness (The University of Chicago Press).
• Consequentialism: Walter, ‘Consequentialism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
• Bentham and Mill: Bentham (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation; Mill, On Liberty; Arneson (1980) ‘Mill versus Paternalism’, Ethics 90(4), 470–89.
• Paternalism: Dworkin (2019) 'Paternalism' in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Ambuehl, Bernheim, and Ockenfels (2019) ‘Projective Paternalism’; Conly (2013) Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism; Conly (2017) ‘Paternalism, coercion and the unimportance of (some) liberties’, Behavioural Public Policy, 1(2), 207-218; Adrian Vermeule (2015) ‘Rationally Arbitrary Decisions in Administrative Law’, The Journal of Legal Studies 44, 475.
• Behavioural economics, happiness, and state paternalism: Jolls, Sunstein, and Thaler (1998) ‘A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics’, Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1550; Sunstein and Thaler (2003) ‘Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron’, The University of Chicago Law Review 70(4), 1159–1202; Thaler and Sunstein (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness; Sunstein (2015) ‘The Ethics of Nudging’, Yale Journal on Regulation 32, 413–50; Camerer et al. (2003) ‘Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for ‘Asymmetric Paternalism’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151(3), 1211; Bernheim (2016) ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics’, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7(1), 12–68; Goldin (2015) ‘Which Way To Nudge? Uncovering Preferences in the Behavioral Age’, The Yale Law Journal 125, 226–70.

Assessment Details

• Individual Project: 85%
• Group Presentation: 15%
• Reflective Journal: Pass/Fail
• Participation: Pass/Fail