Happiness (1 Viewer)

[Silver Persian]

Here are a series of questions about happiness. Answer them, and all will be well:

-Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness?
-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?
-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?
-Is happiness an emotional state, a deliberative judgement about the state of one's life, a combination of both, or other.
-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

Now go!

 

[Iron]

Here are a series of questions about happiness. Answer them, and all will be well:

-Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness?
-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?
-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?
-Is happiness an emotional state, a deliberative judgement about the state of one's life, a combination of both, or other.
-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

Now go!

Gr8 thread!

I think we first should agree on a definition of happiness, but we can perhaps do this l8tr
1. Sure! People need to be happy and the gvt is best placed to deliever on this, unfortunately, atm
2. Again, definitional issues. So unhappy as their life or others' might be at risk? I think that the standard of unhappiness in which the gvt intervenes should be around this reasonable personal harm, informed by good psychology
3. Clearly not. It is very often good to deny yourself the pleasure of happiness. I would consider it a stoic duty (cf joy) to explore this point further
4. Sure, arts, define the key term at the end. It seems intrinsically internal and subjective
5. Obviously this would not be the optimal basis for conversion, as the doctrine should never be bent to accomodate any one individual's needs. This is the problem with the evangelical movement and is why they have a huge back-door in their membership. Religious 'happiness' is not an ideal label. It's more an inner peace that is a by-product of recognising and paying heed to sublime truth

Room for refinement!

 

[DownInFlames]

I think people would be happier if businesses start endorsing employee naptime in their company policies.

 

[Silver Persian]

1. Sure! People need to be happy and the gvt is best placed to deliever on this, unfortunately, atm

Do you have any qualms about the government intervening in the citizen's emotional life? Surely this is a realm best left to the orchestrations of the family?

3. Clearly not. It is very often good to deny yourself the pleasure of happiness. I would consider it a stoic duty (cf joy) to explore this point further

In what instances?

4. Sure, arts, define the key term at the end. It seems intrinsically internal and subjective

Define the term Other? It means, do you have an alternative definition of happiness that has not been included in the quesiton.
Happiness may be internal and subjective - but we could still be talking about an emotional "feeling" or a conscious "judgement" about our lives. And if happiness is internal and subjective, is it possible for the state is properly measure it, or intervene in the pursuit of it?

 

[Silver Persian]

I think people would be happier if businesses start endorsing employee naptime in their company policies.

I think this raises interesting questions about work/life balance.

Has home ownsership become a strange form of voluntary indentured labour?
Should people spend more time with their families, pursuing hobbies etc?
Why do most people not like to go to work?

 

[Silver Persian]

i think the world would be happier if everyone converted to Islam.

lol.

erhrhrhrhrhr. your contribution is highly valued

 

[jb_nc]

Here are a series of questions about happiness. Answer them, and all will be well:

-Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness?
-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?
-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?
-Is happiness an emotional state, a deliberative judgement about the state of one's life, a combination of both, or other.
-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

Now go!

Unit of study: PHIL2647 - The Philosophy of Happiness - University of Sydney

 

[Silver Persian]

Unit of study: PHIL2647 - The Philosophy of Happiness - University of Sydney

Yes, I want to talk about something that i studied at uni. is this a problem?

 

[Iron]

Do you have any qualms about the government intervening in the citizen's emotional life? Surely this is a realm best left to the orchestrations of the family?



In what instances?



Define the term Other? It means, do you have an alternative definition of happiness that has not been included in the quesiton.
Happiness may be internal and subjective - but we could still be talking about an emotional "feeling" or a conscious "judgement" about our lives. And if happiness is internal and subjective, is it possible for the state is properly measure it, or intervene in the pursuit of it?

I dont have a problem with a government whose interventions are consistent with truth, but I recognise that they rarely intervene in this way and that they prefer to act more selfishly.

Patriotism itself can be a great force for happiness, but given the industralial revolution and the subsequent super-expansion of the state, this natural affection people have for their place tends to be easily exploited by those in power. The state, left unchecked, tends to try to define itself as Truth through various quasi-religous ways.
This ultimately leads to disillusionment and unhappiness.
All states are bastards

It's often good to defer personal happiness for the sake of another, esp when such a deferal of marginal joy would be of massive benifit to a less fortunate person, in proportion - for instance, giving a few dollars to buy some starving 3rd world country a functioning chicken, instead of buying a mars bar

I also dont see how you can argue that happiness is objective
:s

 

[Graney]

Even when offered a promotion, Meursault remains apathetic. “’You’re young,’” his boss says, “’and it seems to me it’s the kind of life that would appeal to you.’ I said yes, but that it really was all the same to me.

Then he asked me if I wasn’t interested in a change of life. I said that people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another, and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all.

 

[Silver Persian]

Du you truly believe that one life is as good as another Graney?

 

[Silver Persian]

I dont have a problem with a government whose interventions are consistent with truth, but I recognise that they rarely intervene in this way and that they prefer to act more selfishly.

Patriotism itself can be a great force for happiness, but given the industralial revolution and the subsequent super-expansion of the state, this natural affection people have for their place tends to be easily exploited by those in power. The state, left unchecked, tends to try to define itself as Truth through various quasi-religous ways.
This ultimately leads to disillusionment and unhappiness.
All states are bastards

What would you say about a state that was promoting "truth"? Say one that was limiting divorce, homosexuality or abortion? This would make many people unhappy - in this instance is it the state's responsibility to promote social happiness as you initally said?

It's often good to defer personal happiness for the sake of another, esp when such a deferal of marginal joy would be of massive benifit to a less fortunate person, in proportion - for instance, giving a few dollars to buy some starving 3rd world country a functioning chicken, instead of buying a mars bar

Is it good for me, though, or only the other person? And in what sense is it good for me. (When I say "good for me", I'm not referring to the ethical sense of goodness, but rather the sense in which something might be to my benefit. These two may be related of course).

I also dont see how you can argue that happiness is objective

If I am a happy homosexual, would you say that I am wrong to be happy, given that I am violating His law?

 

[loquasagacious]

1. Yes
2. No. People have a fundamental right to choose how to live.
3. In a way yes. Everything else can be viewed as a means to an end e.g. money is good only insofar as it helps facilitate happiness.
4. Happiness is an emotional state based on an unconscious judgement of ones life.
5. No. This assumes that I would be happier if religious. Also it assumes that religion is a causal factor not a correlate or they could both be caused by a third factor.

 

[Lentern]

Here are a series of questions about happiness. Answer them, and all will be well:

-Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness?
-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?
-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?
-Is happiness an emotional state, a deliberative judgement about the state of one's life, a combination of both, or other.
-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

Now go!

-Yes, if not what role does government have

-Ofcourse, ordinary people are dumb, you don't just give them what they want. You wouldn't give brandy to an alcoholic, peoplehave proven time and time again the responsibility of thinking for themselves should be taken off them. The only people in BNW who were unhappy were those who questioned the government, the others were all happy.
-I would say so, dependant on the definition of happiness.
-I think happiness is a relativity thing, on the deepest level I think it's if your convinced things are improving you are happy. Simple example, you might feel pain exercising but draw happiness in the knowlege you're getting healthier from it, but if you're convinced you won't actually keep it up and this is going to make a drop in the ocean's difference to your health as a result then I would say you would not be happy because your thoughts are anticipating no improvement.
-I don't think "becoming religious" is such a conscious choice, you either inherently believe or you don't.

 

[lychnobity]

-Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness? no


-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene? no

-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good? yes

-Is happiness an emotional state, a deliberative judgement about the state of one's life, a combination of both, or other. combination of both

-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious? no

 

[Silver Persian]

2. No. People have a fundamental right to choose how to live.
3. In a way yes. Everything else can be viewed as a means to an end e.g. money is good only insofar as it helps facilitate happiness.

Isn't this a little inconsistent? If you believe that happiness is the only intrinsically valuable good, wouldn't you have to say that freedom is only valuable as a means to the end of happiness? And that, if freedom wasn't producing happiness, that it could be curtailed?

5. No. This assumes that I would be happier if religious. Also it assumes that religion is a causal factor not a correlate or they could both be caused by a third factor.

Good answer +1

 

[Silver Persian]

-Yes, if not what role does government have

-Ofcourse, ordinary people are dumb, you don't just give them what they want. You wouldn't give brandy to an alcoholic, peoplehave proven time and time again the responsibility of thinking for themselves should be taken off them. The only people in BNW who were unhappy were those who questioned the government, the others were all happy.

ohohoho...Lentern has a sense of humour now?

But yes, people are often conflicted about whether they would prefer to be happy and brainwashed/subjugated, or unhappy but with some sense of reality/agency.

See: Nozick's experience machine.

 

[Iron]

What would you say about a state that was promoting "truth"? Say one that was limiting divorce, homosexuality or abortion? This would make many people unhappy - in this instance is it the state's responsibility to promote social happiness as you initally said?



Is it good for me, though, or only the other person? And in what sense is it good for me. (When I say "good for me", I'm not referring to the ethical sense of goodness, but rather the sense in which something might be to my benefit. These two may be related of course).



If I am a happy homosexual, would you say that I am wrong to be happy, given that I am violating His law?

-Er,
The people dont know what they want. Truth is always best, even better than this still vague notion of happiness. The problem is that we are inherently evil and, given democracy...

-I think that the good to yourself is irrelevant. There is of course satisfaction in helping others, but it's not wise to dwell on this, lest you become a pompous ass like Iron

-I would dispute that you really are happy. I feel the doubt in you Silver Persian.
Ur an entirely fictitious character.

 

[Iron]

--I don't think "becoming religious" is such a conscious choice, you either inherently believe or you don't.

GTFO First YEAR

 

[Lentern]

GTFO First YEAR

Someones pissy because they don't inherently believe.