I find it poetically ironic the way Western media/attention on Matthieu Ricard always focuses on him being "the happiest" - a completely inwardly-focused, selfish goal. The exact opposite of the type of worldview buddhism advocates
Being happy isn't a selfish goal, in fact buddhism looks at this as a non-selfish goal. Buddhism totally advocates for happiness[1], it is only your perception that happiness is selfish that is in error.
The quest of being happy is a selfish quest. Selfishness is a good thing to me.
Helping other (altruism) is also a good thing - since it serves your own selfishness (makes you more happy to see people happy - especially if you made them happy). The only limit is the damage it may cause them (ex: encouraging sloth)
The only bad thing is sacrifice - sacrificing the others or even worse, yourself, is very rarely a good thing - a good rule of thumb is thus to avoid sacrifices.
(words from a libertarian who finds many interesting things in buddhism)
From what I have read, and what I would also argue, buddhism makes the point that increasing your own happiness it is not a selfish thing because when you are happy those around you are more prone to also become happy. Like if you are happy and smile at someone and then it makes them happy.
So while maybe it could be argued becoming happy is selfish, actually being happy is not selfish. But then again becoming anything is selfish, I think the point is what happens after the point of becoming that thing. There is a lot of this logic in buddhism, which is why more importance is usually given to your volition for doing something than what it actually is your doing (think karma).
guylhem and blissofbeing both make very good points here. We can take into consideration the motivation behind the wish to be happy. It reminds me of a story I read while studying. I'm going to paraphrase here so please forgive any mistakes.
There was a man traveling down a road while it was raining. He came across a statue of Lord Buddha. He thought to himself, "The Buddha is getting all wet, that is not right. I shall cover his head so he doesn't get wet". He took off his shoe and put it over the Buddha's head.
Now, in those days (and even today in many parts of Asia) the act of putting something from your feet onto a Buddha's head is very disgraceful. In Thailand people don't even let their toes point at a statue of Buddha. Many people would think that man did something very wrong. However, his motivation was to protect Buddha and that single act was the eventual cause for himself to become a Buddha.
I am no expert and am just repeating what I have read elsewhere. Hopefully I did not mess the story up to bad and someone will still benefit.
If it is direct, it means you are sacrificing others. It is not a good thing as said above. You can find happiness and be selfish in various ways that will not directly harm others.
In Atlas Shrugged, refusal to remain a part of the system is just this (John Galt, the gulch) - trying to find one's happiness, without directly causing damage to others.
The whole society may be less happy due to the refusal of a few to sacrifice, but it is an indirect damage, an indirect cost. The alternative would be their sacrifice - a direct damage.
IMHO no man is entitled to happiness at the direct expanse of others.
So many example - I don't know if there is a generic answer!
But let's take them one by one.
Physical coercion is always wrong - it has a direct cost on others.
Layoffs are fine - no one has a right to work.
Hostile takeover - ownership right are respected so that's ok.
Fracking is an edge case - a negative externality if people already lived in a place and expected no such new industry would show up - so in that case, at a direct cost - and it becomes a bad thing.
If however similar or identical industries were already in place, yet people decided to move in, it's freedom - and it's fine.
Medical testing - I guess that would depend on what you mean by unethical. I'm sorry I can't answer for that one, expect by default a "direct cost" if you mean people entered medical testing while not being told the whole truth if laws requiring the whole truth to be disclosed exist, or in their absence if they were lied to. That's because it's just like cheating in a contract.
I hope this helps.
+1'ing you anyway since it's an interesting questioning about limit cases (and flipping the bird to the downvoters)
Its unfortunate that the article does not do much to explain what "happiness" in this context means. These monks are meditating on compassion and the wish to benefit all sentient beings. The gamma waves are a byproduct of this type of meditation. The scientists are making the link between gamma rays and happiness, not the monks.
I do not see an indication that "happiness" was the goal. Happiness is a subjective measure one uses to gauge one's effectiveness in obtaining one's goals. We don't know what he is trying to obtain when having his gamma waves measured, but we can be certain that he believes he is obtaining those goals.
