Some major cultures and some individuals mistrust happiness (see article for reasons)-- if happiness is not a major value, how does this affect ethics/utilitarianism?
This seems to me like learned helplessness, which is probably a “farmer” adaptation. In my opinion, hapiness is always good for the individual, but sometimes my unhappiness may benefit the rest of the tribe, so there can be a cultural norm against happiness. And if other people punish you for happiness, you will learn that happiness is actually bad for you, and rationalize some wise reasons for it, or the culture will already provide you with ready rationalizations.
How is individual happiness bad for society? While people are enjoying sex at their homes, churches and supermarkets are empty.
How is individual happiness bad for society? While people are enjoying sex at their homes, churches and supermarkets are empty.
It’s not just that—I go with Wilhelm Reich in the idea that getting people to give up harmless pleasures is a way of getting more extensive control of them.
Getting people to wear uncomfortable clothes or give up sleep for no good reason is also a way of getting them to overwork or get themselves killed for your purposes.
Making people give up sleep is a traditional method of reducing their intelligence, so they are less likely to see through the bullshit or design an escape plan. Every decent cult does this to their new members.
But reducing their attention by uncomfortable clothes—that’s subtle!
Either way, seems to me this is not about pleasure per se, but rather about reducing mental abilities using unpleasant means. There are also pleasant things that reduce mental abilities, such as singing or praying together, though. It would be interesting to have data about how this correlates with the “ban on happiness”—whether cultures opposed to happiness consistently oppose both “anti-system” and “pro-system” happiness, or whether the ban on “anti-social” happiness is used as a motivation to engage more in the “pro-system” happiness.
If your first paragraph was true, wouldn’t people continue to feel happy but just not show it? I feel like unhappiness must be adaptive (even without considering social effects) at least in some cases.
That gets into Hansen’s theories about hypocrisy—sometimes it’s easier to believe the mask one is wearing is one’s real self. And this overlaps what Vassar has said (as I understand him) about some people trusting what society says about what a person ought to be, rather than taking the light and flexible approach to language that the majority of people do. (Translation: being a geek can be being a sucker.)
I think that secret happiness is a real thing. Some people take pleasure in complaining, enjoy being passively aggressive about something, etc., but of course they would publicly deny it.
On the other hand, I agree that in some situations, unhappiness may be adaptive. Evolution does not care about our values.
There are other categories of secret happiness—enjoying low status or otherwise deprecated pleasures and schadenfreude about high status people. Either of those could have social support, but sometimes they don’t.
Arguably, many consequentialists already fall in to this category. If you are unsettled by the image of a universe composed entirely of undifferentiated orgasmium, then it’s a fair bet that happiness is not your (only) terminal value. To return to a common sentiment, “I don’t want to maximize my happiness, I want to maximize my awesomeness.”
That said, happiness is usually of some value to students of ethics. A system in which it had zero value could conceivably still be pretty happy for instrumental reasons, since happiness makes humans more efficient in the pursuit of most things that we can expect to be valued. Once you start creating non-human entities from the ground up, you would expect happiness to become rare, although not necessarily to be replaced with misery. (The paperclipper is such a force.)
Happiness can mean quite a lot of different things to different people. Even in the a single culture like the US the average 25 year old means something different with the term than the average 50 year old.
The article makes it even more worse by conflating joy and happiness. Furthermore translation of words over cultural boundaries is going to add additional challenges.
The article makes it even more worse by conflating joy and happiness.
Many articles that talk about happiness do that, including the often cited paper about how supposedly the connection between income and happiness breaks down at a certain level.
Many articles that talk about happiness do that, including the often cited paper about how supposedly the connection between income and happiness breaks down at a certain level.
Yes, and as far as that argument goes I think the case ifs good that the connection between some forms of happiness breaks down while it doesn’t for other forms.
That people do not value as the sole terminal goal is obvious by the high number of people unwilling to wirebrain themselves, that is to place their brain into a mechanical and chemical device that provides with the maximum pleasure biochemistry allows.
As members of this site like to forget: Homo Sapiens is not a rational species but a product of evolution and thus only a program that runs its course.
It doesn’t matter whether they say they want to be happy, happiness is an objectively preferable state. If this article is accurate, then their beliefs about why happiness isn’t preferable is based on incorrect beliefs, anyway.
Regardless of whether people currently think so, being happy would be preferred by happy people who have gotten over their hangups about it.
And how do you know this?
Actually, let me ask you a different, more basic question. Are you making a statement about reality or are you just redefining happiness to mean “whatever people prefer” so that your claim becomes a tautology?
Also, consider this statement: “Regardless of whether people currently think so, being high on heroin would be preferred by people high on heroin who have gotten over their hangups about it.”
Are you making a statement about reality or are you just redefining happiness to mean “whatever people prefer” so that your claim becomes a tautology?
No, happiness is a range of mental states, and it’s possible to express a preference of not being happy, just like it’s theoretically possible to express any preferences.
Are you making a statement about reality or are you just redefining happiness to mean “whatever people prefer” so that your claim becomes a tautology?
No, happiness is a range of mental states, and it’s possible to express a preference of not being happy, just like it’s theoretically possible to express any preferences.
As for heroin, it has considerable side effects that are a significant drawback to using it. On the other hand, something like wireheading is indeed a preferable state.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
And you, then, assume that since you wouldn’t know, no one could possibly do.
Moreover, you insist that everyone who thinks in more complex terms than just pleasure and pain is mistaken in their beliefs and really wants just pleasure and nothing but pleasure.
I’ve heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully. Moreover, it’s not a matter of me not knowing, it’s a matter of someone who says “This is good even though it’s not pleasurable” doesn’t give any convincingly motivating justification for it.
I’ve heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully.
You are aware that there is, for example, a quite large corpus of world literature which has rather thoroughly and seriously engaged the subject of values other than pleasure and pain?
doesn’t give any convincingly motivating justification for it.
Emotional states and terminal values have no justification and need no justification. They just are.
You are aware that there is, for example, a quite large corpus of world literature which has rather thoroughly and seriously engaged the subject of values other than pleasure and pain?
Of course, I can’t say that I’ve read absolutely everything that has ever been written on the subject, but I’ve read enough to identify certain families of arguments, and find none of them persuasive.
Emotional states and terminal values have no justification and need no justification.
True, but when you’re doing something instrumental, you should be sure that what you’re doing is justified by your terminal values, and people can be mistaken about whether what they do has the effects they prefer.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
I don’t believe you. I believe that if caught unawares (without the time to rationalise) you will rapidly and intuitively make value judgements about things and convey them both via word and deed. For example you will not act as if you are perfectly OK for billions of (relative) innocents to be slaughtered so long as you are wired to feel pleasure regardless of that occurrence. You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into ‘far-mode’ (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
No insult intended. My skepticism means “I don’t believe you are as insane as you claim you are.”
You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into ‘far-mode’ (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
You’ve set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, “You’re verbalizing in far mode, so I don’t believe you”. FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
You’ve set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, “You’re verbalizing in far mode, so I don’t believe you”.
You aren’t set up. To the extent that it would be difficult to repute by counterexample I consider the lack of a counter-example to be overwhelmingly weak evidence. I’m not entitled to that particular proof.
FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
No reason and no capability. FWIW I do believe you might be inclined to self modifying into a being with your expressed preferences if given that opportunity.
Because pleasure feels good and pain feels bad. Outside of those, there’s no sufficient grounding for what should be sought or avoided.
You are missing out on a world of possibilities. I hope, at least, that you speak only for yourself? Because not everyone considers pleasure and pain to be in opposition and even among those of us that appreciate both to an extreme degree, not everyone considers them at the top of the list of experiences worth seeking.
On the other hand, something like wireheading is indeed a preferable state.
There are far more interesting things that can be done with wires[1] and electrical current than overloading a dopamine or opiate reward or pleasure center. How boring!
Fear of happiness
Some major cultures and some individuals mistrust happiness (see article for reasons)-- if happiness is not a major value, how does this affect ethics/utilitarianism?
This seems to me like learned helplessness, which is probably a “farmer” adaptation. In my opinion, hapiness is always good for the individual, but sometimes my unhappiness may benefit the rest of the tribe, so there can be a cultural norm against happiness. And if other people punish you for happiness, you will learn that happiness is actually bad for you, and rationalize some wise reasons for it, or the culture will already provide you with ready rationalizations.
How is individual happiness bad for society? While people are enjoying sex at their homes, churches and supermarkets are empty.
It’s not just that—I go with Wilhelm Reich in the idea that getting people to give up harmless pleasures is a way of getting more extensive control of them.
Getting people to wear uncomfortable clothes or give up sleep for no good reason is also a way of getting them to overwork or get themselves killed for your purposes.
Making people give up sleep is a traditional method of reducing their intelligence, so they are less likely to see through the bullshit or design an escape plan. Every decent cult does this to their new members.
But reducing their attention by uncomfortable clothes—that’s subtle!
Either way, seems to me this is not about pleasure per se, but rather about reducing mental abilities using unpleasant means. There are also pleasant things that reduce mental abilities, such as singing or praying together, though. It would be interesting to have data about how this correlates with the “ban on happiness”—whether cultures opposed to happiness consistently oppose both “anti-system” and “pro-system” happiness, or whether the ban on “anti-social” happiness is used as a motivation to engage more in the “pro-system” happiness.
If your first paragraph was true, wouldn’t people continue to feel happy but just not show it? I feel like unhappiness must be adaptive (even without considering social effects) at least in some cases.
That gets into Hansen’s theories about hypocrisy—sometimes it’s easier to believe the mask one is wearing is one’s real self. And this overlaps what Vassar has said (as I understand him) about some people trusting what society says about what a person ought to be, rather than taking the light and flexible approach to language that the majority of people do. (Translation: being a geek can be being a sucker.)
I think that secret happiness is a real thing. Some people take pleasure in complaining, enjoy being passively aggressive about something, etc., but of course they would publicly deny it.
On the other hand, I agree that in some situations, unhappiness may be adaptive. Evolution does not care about our values.
There are other categories of secret happiness—enjoying low status or otherwise deprecated pleasures and schadenfreude about high status people. Either of those could have social support, but sometimes they don’t.
We could also say that the rewarded by it. Like most addictions enjoyment doesn’t tend to be a part of it (after enough time).
Arguably, many consequentialists already fall in to this category. If you are unsettled by the image of a universe composed entirely of undifferentiated orgasmium, then it’s a fair bet that happiness is not your (only) terminal value. To return to a common sentiment, “I don’t want to maximize my happiness, I want to maximize my awesomeness.”
That said, happiness is usually of some value to students of ethics. A system in which it had zero value could conceivably still be pretty happy for instrumental reasons, since happiness makes humans more efficient in the pursuit of most things that we can expect to be valued. Once you start creating non-human entities from the ground up, you would expect happiness to become rare, although not necessarily to be replaced with misery. (The paperclipper is such a force.)
Happiness can mean quite a lot of different things to different people. Even in the a single culture like the US the average 25 year old means something different with the term than the average 50 year old.
The article makes it even more worse by conflating joy and happiness. Furthermore translation of words over cultural boundaries is going to add additional challenges.
The article makes it even more worse by conflating joy and happiness.
Many articles that talk about happiness do that, including the often cited paper about how supposedly the connection between income and happiness breaks down at a certain level.
Yes, and as far as that argument goes I think the case ifs good that the connection between some forms of happiness breaks down while it doesn’t for other forms.
That people do not value as the sole terminal goal is obvious by the high number of people unwilling to wirebrain themselves, that is to place their brain into a mechanical and chemical device that provides with the maximum pleasure biochemistry allows.
As members of this site like to forget: Homo Sapiens is not a rational species but a product of evolution and thus only a program that runs its course.
It doesn’t matter whether they say they want to be happy, happiness is an objectively preferable state. If this article is accurate, then their beliefs about why happiness isn’t preferable is based on incorrect beliefs, anyway.
I don’t quite understand this. What do you mean by “objectively” and preferable by whom?
Regardless of whether people currently think so, being happy would be preferred by happy people who have gotten over their hangups about it.
And how do you know this?
Actually, let me ask you a different, more basic question. Are you making a statement about reality or are you just redefining happiness to mean “whatever people prefer” so that your claim becomes a tautology?
Also, consider this statement: “Regardless of whether people currently think so, being high on heroin would be preferred by people high on heroin who have gotten over their hangups about it.”
No, happiness is a range of mental states, and it’s possible to express a preference of not being happy, just like it’s theoretically possible to express any preferences.
No, happiness is a range of mental states, and it’s possible to express a preference of not being happy, just like it’s theoretically possible to express any preferences.
As for heroin, it has considerable side effects that are a significant drawback to using it. On the other hand, something like wireheading is indeed a preferable state.
So then we come back to the question: how do you know?
Because pleasure feels good and pain feels bad. Outside of those, there’s no sufficient grounding for what should be sought or avoided.
And how do you know that?
Human range of emotional states is considerably more complicated than a single pain—pleasure axis.
Because I wouldn’t know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
And you, then, assume that since you wouldn’t know, no one could possibly do.
Moreover, you insist that everyone who thinks in more complex terms than just pleasure and pain is mistaken in their beliefs and really wants just pleasure and nothing but pleasure.
Correct?
I’ve heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully. Moreover, it’s not a matter of me not knowing, it’s a matter of someone who says “This is good even though it’s not pleasurable” doesn’t give any convincingly motivating justification for it.
You are aware that there is, for example, a quite large corpus of world literature which has rather thoroughly and seriously engaged the subject of values other than pleasure and pain?
Emotional states and terminal values have no justification and need no justification. They just are.
Of course, I can’t say that I’ve read absolutely everything that has ever been written on the subject, but I’ve read enough to identify certain families of arguments, and find none of them persuasive.
True, but when you’re doing something instrumental, you should be sure that what you’re doing is justified by your terminal values, and people can be mistaken about whether what they do has the effects they prefer.
I don’t believe you. I believe that if caught unawares (without the time to rationalise) you will rapidly and intuitively make value judgements about things and convey them both via word and deed. For example you will not act as if you are perfectly OK for billions of (relative) innocents to be slaughtered so long as you are wired to feel pleasure regardless of that occurrence. You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into ‘far-mode’ (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
No insult intended. My skepticism means “I don’t believe you are as insane as you claim you are.”
You’ve set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, “You’re verbalizing in far mode, so I don’t believe you”. FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
You aren’t set up. To the extent that it would be difficult to repute by counterexample I consider the lack of a counter-example to be overwhelmingly weak evidence. I’m not entitled to that particular proof.
No reason and no capability. FWIW I do believe you might be inclined to self modifying into a being with your expressed preferences if given that opportunity.
You are missing out on a world of possibilities. I hope, at least, that you speak only for yourself? Because not everyone considers pleasure and pain to be in opposition and even among those of us that appreciate both to an extreme degree, not everyone considers them at the top of the list of experiences worth seeking.
There are far more interesting things that can be done with wires[1] and electrical current than overloading a dopamine or opiate reward or pleasure center. How boring!
[1] For example, a tesla coil that uses electronic nipple clamps as a control circuit.
Being a member of the Star Trek Borg Collective is preferred by all members of the Borg Collective who have gotten over their hangups about it.
And yet.