Results and Analysis

To begin with, it should be mentioned that only18% of the 407 respondents were characterized by a positive moral orientation. People with a negative moral orientation were twice as numerous (36%), and the remaining 46% were placed in the “0” group with a vague moral orientation.

As is evident from investigations, the level of happiness in people with dif­ferent moral orientations is certainly different, which is reflected in Figure 1.

Level of Happiness in People with Different Moral Orientations

91

F ig. 1. Average levels of happiness in groups with the negative (“‒”), unobvious (“0”) and positive (“+”) moral orientations, and the levels attesting to the certainty of difference between the groups (p).

1. The highest level of happiness is in the group with the negative moral ori­entation, and the lowest level of happiness is in the positive group. The average level of happiness in the “‒” group equals M=74.4 points, which is higher than in the “0” group (M=72) and the “+” group (M=69.3). The level attesting to the cer­tainty of difference between the results of the opposite groups is p<0.001; differ­ences are certain at the p<0.05 level between the “‒” and “0” groups, while the tendency towards certain difference at p=0.08 is revealed between “0” and “+.”

In all evidence, these results are due to many things, but the most important of these are linked to the individual traits of the value-and-need sphere, income and subjective adequacy of income, satisfaction with one’s private life, objective difficulties arising from the habitual observance of moral standards, etc.

The value-and-need sphere specificities underlie many factors that can influence happiness¹⁶ because people with different types of value priorities associate happiness with satisfying predominantly different types of needs— material, spiritual, esteem, recognition, etc.—which are realizable to a different extent.

As demonstrated by additional investigations conducted by the author of the present article, one of the main features of the value-and-need sphere of people with a positive moral orientation by comparison with other people is the much greater importance of such altruistic values as helping other people, being mer­ciful and magnanimous, and sacrificing one’s interests for the sake of other peo-

92 Social sciences

ple’s interests (p<0.001). It is of more importance for them to be accepted by society, adhere to social norms, engage in behavioral self-control, and pay an interest in the fates of society (p<0.001). Other researchers found that these peo­ple put a higher value on fairness, truth, harmony in relations, friendship, self-sacrifice, and kindness.¹⁷ This means that society’s well-being and the applica­tion of general human moral principles to the life of society is of more impor­tance for people with a relatively high level of moral development. Since these values are clearly in short supply in society and are more important for moral people, it is these people who will suffer more than others from the dearth of jus­tice, truth and kindness in the life of society, particularly if the moral state of society takes a turn for the worse. One of the founders of humanistic psycholo­gy, Abraham Maslow, said that “people with such metamotives as truth, good­ness, beauty, justice, order, law, unity, etc., may suffer deprivation at the meta-motivational level.”¹⁸

The shortage of general human moral principles in society may affect moral people both directly, when they run into meanness, hypocrisy, deceit, boorish-ness, rudeness, extortion, etc., and indirectly. One of the mechanisms of indirect “influence of what is going on in society on the psychological state of its mem­bers,” according to Andrey Yurevich, “has something to do with the fact that we cannot be impassive even if an event does not affect us personally... Since the early 1990s, we constantly have to witness not only injustice but also the omnipotence of crime, corruption, child prostitution, and much else, i.e., an envi­ronment in which one finds it hard to be in a good psychological state.”¹⁹ This has a particular relevance for people with a relatively high moral level because they are more sensitive to injustice and immorality and unable to calmly watch negative phenomena in society, even if these do not affect them directly. The truth of this assertion is confirmed by another investigation of the author of the present article, which shows that respondents with an expressed positive moral orientation are no longer satisfied with those aspects of life which affect the well-being of numerous people, this unlike respondents with a negative moral orientation who are more dissatisfied with the aspects of life that concern them either personally or through their families.²⁰

The above mechanism is reinforced by the fact that the psyche of any living being is active and selective and that any person concentrates on what is of greater importance for him. Accordingly, people with high moral qualities may pay more attention than others to society’s problems, particularly moral prob­lems, the consequences that follow, and alarming prospects.

On the other hand, the above investigations showed that the specific features of the value-and-need sphere of people with a negative moral orientation, by comparison with all other people, was a much less expressed importance of being able to help others (p=0.00002) or of other people’s happiness (p=0.011) and a more expressed importance of material well-being (p=0.018), success (p=0.006), being a leader or a chief executive (p=0.0004), being able to spend one’s time and money on pleasure and rest (p=0.01), that is, personal prosperity. Since personal prosperity mostly depends on one’s own efficient effort, it is

Level of Happiness in People with Different Moral Orientations 93

incomparably easier to attain than the well-being of society as a whole. Accord­ingly, positive emotions are more accessible as one achieves one’s goals or inter­mediate results, something that boosts the level of happiness. Moreover, these people can facilitate for themselves the attainment of their goals by breaching moral and legal bans, since, according to Muzdybayev, this behavior is much more acceptable to them.

Subjective adequacy of income is seen as one of the more important fac­tors influencing satisfaction with life and happiness.²¹ To a considerable extent, if indirectly, income can also determine satisfaction with life and happiness. But the influence of these indicators on human happiness depends on the specific features of a person’s value-and-need sphere.²² Income and subjective adequacy of income have the strongest influence on the happiness of people with low moral qualities because it is for them that material well-being is of more impor­tance (p=0.018). The material sphere is of much less importance for people with high moral qualities (p=0.0003) and has less influence on their level of happi­ness. As for people with a negative moral orientation, they are more satisfied with their material status as being based on a higher level of material well-being. IQLR question No. 12 shows that people with a negative moral orientation (p<0.05) are the ones to assess their material status higher than the rest. In Muzdybayev, people with a high level of egoism are more satisfied with their material status (p<0.1); there are fewer penurious individuals among them (p<0.001) and more people with a high level of prosperity (10% vs. 52%).²³ The combination of high significance of material prosperity with its availability to people with a negative moral orientation can be a very important factor in sig­nificantly enhancing their level of happiness and satisfaction with life.

Satisfaction with private life and family life is among the main factors influencing satisfaction with life and happiness.²⁴ Our research shows that peo­ple with a negative moral orientation tend to assess their private life as more suc­cessful by comparison with moral people (p<0.05), whose private life is less suc­cessful than what is the case in the middle and the negative groups. The middle group’s assessments are wedged between those of the opposite groups. An iden­tical picture is observed in assessments of satisfaction with family life, but the level of certainty of differences between the opposite groups is lower (p<0.1). A student of egoism’s influence on being satisfied with one’s married life, Olesya Bondareva, believes that by exploiting a spouse’s positive qualities, the egoists “are more frequently inclined to use the marital space for satisfying their own needs alone in disregard of the interests and wishes of the spouse.” If this kind of marriage is preserved by reason, for example, of one spouse being dependent on the egoist financially or in some other respect, the egoist may be quite pleased with this marriage. One exception is the situation where both spouses are clear­ly expressed egoists. In this case, the level of marital satisfaction is low.

People with a low level of egoism are happy in marriage when the spouse is at the same moral level. But individuals possessing relatively high moral quali­ties are few and far between (according to various estimates, they number between 4 and 15%) and the cases where both spouses possess high moral qual-

94 SOCIAL SCIENCES

ities are very rare. A much more frequent situation is where spouses are at dif­ferent moral levels and the spouse or the inner family circle exploit people with positive moral qualities by shifting to them their duties and chores. By virtue of his or her kindness, selflessness, and often sheer inability to say “no,” a spouse with a low level of egoism “is not always able to declare his or her wishes or needs and consequently experiences dissatisfaction... and psychological discom-fort.”²⁵ People with a medium level of egoism are mostly satisfied with matri­mony because the desire to uphold their interests is combined in them with readi­ness to accommodate the spouse.

Thus, people with positive moral qualities are less satisfied with their private and family life; at the same time, people with negative and medium moral qual­ities are more satisfied with their private and family life, this being a factor of influence on their happiness.

Objective difficulties of living arising from the constant observance of moral precepts can be yet another reason behind a lower level of happiness in moral people. This is confirmed by Marina Volovikova’s empirical investiga­tions. In analyzing respondents’ descriptions of “a really decent person,” she says: “A model of morality, by everyday standards, is not the most adapted per­son.” “Concrete examples show how difficult it is in our day and age to observe the moral law. A 40-year-old man describes the behavior of his 55-year-old col­league, who ‘despite being threatened with dismissal, and then having actually been dismissed, was defending his point of view and did not accept a compro-mise.’”²⁶ As estimated by Anatoly Zhuravlev and Alla Kupreychenko, members of the moral elite “in their personal experience, as a rule, faced ...all sorts of social restrictions and artificial obstacles, persecution and victimization, as well as the need to overcome the rough and tumble of life, etc.”²⁷

On the contrary, violating moral laws makes life easier for immoral people. There are enough people in society who resort to deception, manipulation with regard to other people, and flattery; who go out of their way in order to be on “good terms” with their superiors for career purposes and higher earnings; who give bribes and offer gifts as a way of solving their problems and do not take close to heart other people’s problems. As a result, these people can be more suc­cessful in their everyday and professional life, more prosperous and pleased with life and themselves. Our investigations show that by comparison with the oppo­site group, people with a negative moral orientation estimate life as more com­fortable (p<0.1); they are mostly in high spirits (p<0.05) and more optimistic about future changes in their life ((p<0.1), while their assessments of easi­ness/difficulty of life gravitate towards the first pole (p<0.1).

To study in depth how the moral level influences future happiness, the sam­ple was divided into five groups. Two extreme groups, “‒2” and “+2,” which included respondents with the more clearly expressed moral characteristics, were singled out from the “‒” and “+” groups. The “+2” group was manned by respon­dents with a low level of egoism (lower or equal to 30 points) and both moral convictions under study were fully formed: 17 persons in all (4%), average age 36.9 years. We can say that these people possess high moral qualities rather than

Level of Happiness in People with Different Moral Orientations

95

just positive moral orientation. The “‒2” group included respondents with the two fully formed negative moral convictions combined with a high level of ego­ism (41 points and higher): 50 persons in all (12%), average age 25 years. The “‒1” (“+1”) groups included respondents with a negative (positive) moral orien­tation, albeit not clearly expressed one. The “‒1” and “+1” groups were formed on the basis of the “‒” and “+” groups minus the respondents that manned the “‒2” and “+2” groups. The “0” group remained unchanged. All the five groups were equalized in age terms. As a result, the “‒2,” “‒1,” “0,” “+1,” “+2” groups comprised 26, 44, 138, 49, and 16 members respectively. The groups’ average happiness levels and certainty levels of difference between groups are represent­ed in Fig. 2.

F ig. 2. Average happiness levels in the “‒2,” “‒1,” “0,” “+1,” “+2” groups. Average certainty levels of difference between “‒2” and “+2” and between these two and the other groups (p).

As is evident from Fig. 2, the happiest group is “‒1” that includes people with a moderate negative moral orientation. By comparison with them, the “‒2” group possessing clearly defined negative moral qualities is less happy (p<0.1).This result is quite legitimate and depends on many reasons. More likely than not, peo-