How can you not put a label on the "act" of that which brings forth any emotion?! If we didn't, we wouldn't have any a priori comprehensions . . . tone, connotations and understanding of things (such as music, or poetry) wouldn't even exist. Ergo, to say that act A (say murder) brings forth emotion X (say happiness), which isn't the general consensus, must be labeled in some form. It isn't universal . . . that's the point. To proclaim something as universal, means it's a truth, and forever shall be (such as 2 + 2 in a base ten mathematical system will always equal 4). Thus, the subjective qualities of what it is to be happy is of crucial importance . . . but, in understanding the subjective, one will start to see a "universal-trend." For example: people are generally happy when they get married, or become parents, or have make-up sex. But the act of murder doesn't really denote happiness . . . even, then, if one were to proclaim "Killing my wife because she cheated on me made me happy," it can really be construed as "I was happy being married with my wife, but then she cheated on me, and that made me sad, so I found a way to right that sadness . . . by killing her."

I'm an existentialist, and I can comprehend your logic, and as an absurdist I can also abide by the logic of "ALL POSSIBILITIES ARE POSSIBLE," but to say that happiness can't be defined subjectively is purely illogical and negates the very essence of philosophy.