Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne have all read The Spirit Level, in which Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett present their research showing that large inequalities of wealth and income within a society damage the social fabric and quality of life for everyone (Happy now? Group that wants to cheer you up, 13 April). However, today's politicians lack the vision and the will to stop dealing with symptoms and instead start addressing the root causes of large-scale unhappiness and lack of wellbeing, ie the reasons we have growing levels of homicide, mental illness, depression, unemployment, drug and alcohol addiction, and the lack of social mobility, all of which are down to the growing inequalities of income and wealth. John Crace hits the nail on the head in the last paragraph of his article (Taking joy out of happiness, 13 April), which focuses on the "causes of unhappiness". Sian Williams and her colleagues in Action for Happiness would do well to put their energy into lobbying our politicians to tackle the widening gap between the richest and poorest members of our society.
Dr Christina Kadir
Brighton
• Simon Jenkins (My advice for the happiness lobby? Start with drugs, 13 April) describes the authors of The Spirit Level as economists when, in fact, they are epidemiologists. He then follows this up by apparently suggesting that immigration and country size are factors worthy of equal consideration alongside income inequality as explanations for social dysfunction. These red herrings and many others have been dealt with by Wilkinson and Pickett in the additional chapter added to the latest edition of The Spirit Level. People can also read more about this on our website at www.equalitytrust.org.uk.
Bill Kerry
Co-director, The Equality Trust
• That old hippy Simon Jenkins thinks the key to boosting the national happiness index is repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Far out, dude! But why stop there? Why not divert the budget for, say, Trident, or the boring old NHS to fund regular free handouts of the voters' gear of choice. Then Cameron and Clegg can carry on shafting the country safe in the knowledge that we're all too wasted – oops, I mean happy – to notice. Brave new world, man.
Root Cartwright
Radlett, Hertfordshire
• Happiness may have become a policy goal after the Enlightenment (Editorial, 13 April) but long before the US constitution, Aristotle argued that living well, eudaimonia – often translated as happiness, but closer to flourishing – was what society should strive for. However, Aristotle was under no illusion that there was an easy "twenty practical actions for happiness", for rules and principles rarely apply in any clear way to real life. Instead, Aristotle argued that to live well human beings must live "in accordance with reason" and thereby be able to make good (virtuous) choices using that reason and the experience gained, as a guide to a happy life. Trying to quantify happiness defeats the object. Better to quantify poverty, inequality and the lack of social mobility in order to give everyone a chance for a more equal society where everyone has an opportunity to "flourish".
David Slater
Warrington
• Exploring the nature of happiness seems an entirely valid pursuit if we are to build a better society. But to do so on the premise that "there is more to a flourishing society than ever-increasing national income" is not a promising start. Even a cursory look at the nation's current economic woes and their underlying causes would suggest the idea that "there is more to a flourishing society than ever-increasing personal income" is a far better place to begin. If not, it appears those less fortunate are simply being expected to grin and bear it.
Colin Montgomery
Edinburgh
• In all this talk of happiness, let us not forget those "to whom the miseries of the world / Are misery, and will not let them rest" (Keats).
Malcolm Pittock
Bolton