I’m not sure what the question means.

If it means, “Can I be happy even as the planet ceases to be a domicile for homo sapiens,” then the answer is clearly no. It is difficult to fathom what conception of happiness would allow for the extinction of life–my life included. (That is, provided that we limit ourselves to speaking about “earthly happiness.” A millenarian might celebrate the event; she might feel the joy of the coming rapture.)

If the question means, “Can I be happy while others suffer,” then the answer is perhaps. The 20th C. German philosopher Theodor Adorno insisted that there is no right living in the wrong world. I still agree with him: a good and flourishing life will require establishing the right economic, social, and political conditions, all of which go toward making living well possible. But then my question may not be the same as Adorno’s.

Suppose I identify happiness with peace of mind. Then, is it possible or good for me to seek to achieve mental tranquility despite the fact that political injustices rage and natural disasters upend? I think so. I would argue (and this is where I currently stand; in the past I would not have seen it this way) that we need to distinguish between the first-personal and third-personal standpoints. When I adopt a third-personal standpoint that is oriented toward justice, I am a “we,” a cosmopolitan. From this standpoint, the suffering of others, unnamed and anonymous or named and well-known, ought to matter to me. I may feel ineffectual (“What can I possibly do in the face of this disaster?”) or I may feel called to act (“I shall board a plane instantly for Haiti.”), but in either case I feel the demand to end useless suffering. And rightly so.

However, from a first-personal standpoint, I may feel generally happy that I am not anxious about the future, that I do not regret my past, that I love my family and friends, and so on. In my daily affairs, I may feel equipose, inner and outer balance, harmony with my immediate environment. And what’s wrong with that?

“Yes, but” I hear you saying. “Yes, but aren’t you having your cake and eating it too? And aren’t you turning away from suffering as you enjoy the privilege of being elsewhere and living comfortably?”

But, pray, how should I be? Why would feeling out-of-joint all the time be a good thing? In such a state, would I be more likely to act on behalf of others or less likely because I’m always preoccupied with the buzzing and whirring in my brain? If my personal life is in shambles, then how can I even begin to ascend to a higher, third-personal standpoint? And why should I feel “survivor’s guilt” each and every moment of my life? Frankly, this kind of survivor’s guilt reeks of holier-than-thou.

Or are you implying that I am self-deluded? Maybe my first-personal enjoyments will completely crowd out third-personal claims to suffering. But that’s not self-delusion; it’s an improper “distribution” of first-personal and third-personal standpoints. I don’t see why that has to be the case.

Here is what I am claiming. First, that we are making a “category mistake” when we confuse the question of inner harmony with that of global justice. (Please don’t pull some kind of postmodern deconstructionist rabbit out of your graduate school hat. The distinction is apt.) And, second, that we need to cultivate our faculty of judgment so that we learn how to determine when we should adopt the first-personal and when we should rise to the third-personal. With respect to the second claim, there may be a range of reasonable and acceptable ways of living in the world.