One ultimate psychological motivation can trump even goodness, and that’s the second terminal virtue: personal happiness.
If goodness was a terminal virtue, then how could it ever be trumped by anything? Actually, I think there’s an answer to this. To me, being a terminal virtue seems to mean that you value it regardless of whether it leads to anything else. Contrast this with “I value X only to the extent that it leads to Y”. But if you have more than one terminal virtue, it seems to follow that you’d have to choose which one you value more, and thus one can trump another. I’d address these points.
Anyway, so are you saying that the drive for happiness trumps that of goodness? In most people? If so, to be clear, is it your opinion that happiness and goodness really are terminal goals/virtues of people, or are you just saying that “They are terminal virtues, but in cases where you have to choose, I think happiness trumps goodness”?
We usually want what makes us happy. I want what makes me happy. Spending time with family makes me happy. Playing board games makes me happy. Going hiking makes me happy. Winning races makes me happy. Being open-minded makes me happy. Hearing praise makes me happy. Learning new things makes me happy. Thinking strategically makes me happy. Playing touch football with friends makes me happy. Sharing ideas makes me happy. Feeling free makes me happy. Adventure makes me happy. Even divulging personal information makes me happy.
1) You are too cool!
2) From a literary perspective, that’s a great job of illustrating with example.
Happiness and goodness might be subconsciously motivating them to choose this instrumental goal. Few people can introspect well enough to determine what’s truly motivating them.
Indeed. I think belief in belief would be a great thing to bring up here. Furthermore, I think that explaining it, not just bringing it up, would be a good idea. Ie. a religious person might claim that he wants to become Christ-like even if it meant certain drops in happiness and goodness over the long term. But he may actually act differently, and if he does, then his actual drives oppose what he claims his drives are.
So anytime a Christian does anything but pray for others, do faith-strengthening activities, spread the gospel, or earn money to donate to missionaries, he is anticipating as if God/hell doesn’t exist.
Or perhaps willfully disobeying Him? Which actually seems rather likely to me, because most religious people seem to not follow the instructions with 100% comprehensiveness. As someone raised as a reform Jew, I’m all too aware of this, and always wondered how you could pick and choose what instructions you follow. Perhaps more religious people are different, but my impression was that they follow more like 80-90% of the instructions.
Imagine how many deconversions we would see if it were suddenly sinful to play football, watch TV with your family, or splurge on tasty restaurant meals.
Or maybe we’d just see some interesting new rationalizations! I get your point though.
Basically everyone who says this believes “God wants what’s best for us, even when we don’t understand it.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “best for us” here. Ie. do people believe that God wants happiness for them, goodness for society, or both? (And a new question just came to me—what does God think of animal rights?)
Becoming happy [section]
Your claim in this section seems to be that the terminal virtue of happiness trumps that of goodness (usually?). To really argue this, I think you’d need a lot more evidence.
But given that this is just a section of a larger article, you have limited space. Perhaps a solid intuitive argument could be made in that space, but I didn’t find your examples to be intuitively general enough. Ie. if you gave examples that made me think, “Oh yeah, we do things like that in sooooo many different situations”, then I would have been more convinced by your claim.
Whatever that stuff is, is what accounts for individual variance in which virtues are pursued.
My strong consequentialist instincts may be giving me a particularly hard time here… but I would specify that you’re referring to instrumental virtues. When I think “virtue”, I just instinctively think “terminal”, and thus I had to reread this a few times before understanding it.
Also worth noting is the individual variance in the extent to which an individual is consciously motivated by happiness vs. goodness. If you look at the preference ratios between the two values, sociopaths are found at one end of the spectrum; extreme altruists, the other. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.
We talked for a while about preference ratios and altruism ratios, so I know what you mean, but I don’t think you explained it thoroughly enough.
Preference ratio := how much I care about me : how much I care about person X
Altruism ratio := “I act altruistically because it will lead to goodness” : “I act altruistically because it will lead to my happiness”
I think that these are two fantastic terms, and that they should be introduced into the “vocabulary of morality”.
For most people, the only true terminal values are happiness and goodness.
I think what you meant is that for most people, their only terminal values are happiness and goodness. Terminal values belong to a person. Using the word “the” makes it sound like it’s some sort of inherent property of the universe (to me at least).
And I’m still not very satisfied with the idea of something being an end-in-itself: [section]
Nicely done!
Why should we be controlled by emotions that originated through random chance?
Wrong question. It’s not a matter of whether they should control us. It’s a fact that they do.
Exactly! Not many people seem to understand this.
Um… so my high school Calculus teacher, who is lots, lots smarter than I am, thinks “emotion” is evidence of intelligent design. I thought this was just a “god of the gaps” thing, but maybe it is really the simplest explanation. I think most people here have ruled out an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God… but maybe life on earth as we know it is really just an alien-child’s abandoned science fair project or something.
The former two lines felt like such a great place to end :(
Why bring up the possibility of intelligent design here? You already mention the alien-god of evolution which implies that there is no intelligent design (I think; I just read the wiki article for the first time quickly). Regardless, the origin of the universe/emotions doesn’t seem too relevant and felt like an awkward ending to me.
In short, it was the first time I’ve had a conversation with a fellow “rationalist” and it was one of the coolest experiences I’ve ever had in my life.
Likewise!! On both counts.
For the record, I went really hard on you here. I would say “don’t take it personally”, but I know that you won’t ;)
Anyway, so are you saying that the drive for happiness trumps that of goodness? In most people? If so, to be clear, is it your opinion that happiness and goodness really are terminal goals/virtues of people, or are you just saying that “They are terminal virtues, but in cases where you have to choose, I think happiness trumps goodness”?
Nah, either one can trump the other, depending on the situation and the individual.
[flattery]
Thanks :)
Indeed. I think belief in belief would be a great thing to bring up here. Furthermore, I think that explaining it, not just bringing it up, would be a good idea. Ie. a religious person might claim that he wants to become Christ-like even if it meant certain drops in happiness and goodness over the long term
But I bring that up right in the next paragraph! It fits with both, but do you really think it belongs with ‘become Christ-like’ over ‘become obedient to God’s will’ ? Or are you saying that I should double mention it it twice?
Or perhaps willfully disobeying Him?
Yeah, that too! But that one’s so obvious, isn’t it? Here, we’re talking about people who would actually claim that their terminal goal is to “become obedient” and I don’t think you as a reform Jew would ever have claimed that...
I’m not sure what you mean by “best for us” here. Ie. do people believe that God wants happiness for them, goodness for society, or both? (And a new question just came to me—what does God think of animal rights?)
That’s the point, haha, they don’t know for sure because only God knows God’s will! As for animal rights, I know only a few Christians who are into it, out of all the many Christians I know, only two are vegetarian… most believe God gave man dominion over animals, which means we take care of them and eat them. Some will also misinterpret Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and cite this as God giving us permission to eat meat, but most will cite Genesis and man’s “dominion”
Your claim in this section seems to be that the terminal virtue of happiness trumps that of goodness (usually?). To really argue this, I think you’d need a lot more evidence.
(sigh) If you really think I’m making that argument, or any argument (see my comment to your Part 1), then I really need to practice my writing. :(
When I think “virtue”, I just instinctively think “terminal”, and thus I had to reread this a few times before understanding it.
I think what you meant is that for most people, their only terminal values are happiness and goodness. Terminal values belong to a person. Using the word “the” makes it sound like it’s some sort of inherent property of the universe (to me at least).
Oops, let me rephrase that to be more clear. “The only true terminal values are happiness and goodness.” Thanks. I do think it’s like some sort of inherent property of the universe or something.
The former two lines felt like such a great place to end :(
You’re right!!!! That was silly of me. Ending on “emotion” just reminded me of that conversation and I wanted to get some feedback, but I shouldn’t have been so lazy and should have asked about it on an open thread or something.
Oops, let me rephrase that to be more clear. “The only true terminal values are happiness and goodness.” Thanks. I do think it’s like some sort of inherent property of the universe or something.
To me, saying that it’s an inherent property of the universe sounds like “this is the way it is for everyone, and this is the way it always will be”. I don’t think either of those things are true. You’ve previously said that you think it’s true for the overwhelming majority of people, not everyone. I’m not sure what you think about “this is the way it always will be”. A simple argument against that is that you could just rewire someone’s brain to produce different drives.
Of course, this is just what I interpret “the only true terminal values are happiness and goodness” and “I do think it’s like some sort of inherent property of the universe or something” to imply. I sense that it’s a common interpretation, but I’m not sure.
Anyway:
1) I think semantics aside, we agree that a good deal of people posses these as their terminal virtues. (I think it’s less common than you do, but I do agree that it’s true for a good majority of people)
2) Semantics may be annoying, but they’re important for communicating, and communicating is important. It’s my impression that your writing could be a lot better if the semantics were improved.
To me, saying that it’s an inherent property of the universe sounds like “this is the way it is for everyone, and this is the way it always will be”. I don’t think either of those things are true. You’ve previously said that you think it’s true for the overwhelming majority of people, not everyone. I’m not sure what you think about “this is the way it always will be”. A simple argument against that is that you could just rewire someone’s brain to produce different drives.
My position has become a bit more extreme then. I am guessing it’s true for everyone, and I do think the universe itself is behind it. I suppose it could change, sure. Whether it’s an “inherent property of the universe” might come back to that word “inherent” and whether or not you think “inherent” includes “eternal.” I don’t think we disagree about anything real here.
1) I think semantics aside, we agree that a good deal of people posses these as their terminal virtues. (I think it’s less common than you do, but I do agree that it’s true for a good majority of people)
Only a majority? So do you think: (1) Some people have no desire for personal happiness, (2) Some people have no desire for goodness, or (3) There is some other psychologically motivated end-in-itself that can’t be traced back to one of the two?
Part 2
If goodness was a terminal virtue, then how could it ever be trumped by anything? Actually, I think there’s an answer to this. To me, being a terminal virtue seems to mean that you value it regardless of whether it leads to anything else. Contrast this with “I value X only to the extent that it leads to Y”. But if you have more than one terminal virtue, it seems to follow that you’d have to choose which one you value more, and thus one can trump another. I’d address these points.
Anyway, so are you saying that the drive for happiness trumps that of goodness? In most people? If so, to be clear, is it your opinion that happiness and goodness really are terminal goals/virtues of people, or are you just saying that “They are terminal virtues, but in cases where you have to choose, I think happiness trumps goodness”?
1) You are too cool!
2) From a literary perspective, that’s a great job of illustrating with example.
Indeed. I think belief in belief would be a great thing to bring up here. Furthermore, I think that explaining it, not just bringing it up, would be a good idea. Ie. a religious person might claim that he wants to become Christ-like even if it meant certain drops in happiness and goodness over the long term. But he may actually act differently, and if he does, then his actual drives oppose what he claims his drives are.
Or perhaps willfully disobeying Him? Which actually seems rather likely to me, because most religious people seem to not follow the instructions with 100% comprehensiveness. As someone raised as a reform Jew, I’m all too aware of this, and always wondered how you could pick and choose what instructions you follow. Perhaps more religious people are different, but my impression was that they follow more like 80-90% of the instructions.
Or maybe we’d just see some interesting new rationalizations! I get your point though.
I’m not sure what you mean by “best for us” here. Ie. do people believe that God wants happiness for them, goodness for society, or both? (And a new question just came to me—what does God think of animal rights?)
Your claim in this section seems to be that the terminal virtue of happiness trumps that of goodness (usually?). To really argue this, I think you’d need a lot more evidence.
But given that this is just a section of a larger article, you have limited space. Perhaps a solid intuitive argument could be made in that space, but I didn’t find your examples to be intuitively general enough. Ie. if you gave examples that made me think, “Oh yeah, we do things like that in sooooo many different situations”, then I would have been more convinced by your claim.
My strong consequentialist instincts may be giving me a particularly hard time here… but I would specify that you’re referring to instrumental virtues. When I think “virtue”, I just instinctively think “terminal”, and thus I had to reread this a few times before understanding it.
We talked for a while about preference ratios and altruism ratios, so I know what you mean, but I don’t think you explained it thoroughly enough.
Preference ratio := how much I care about me : how much I care about person X
Altruism ratio := “I act altruistically because it will lead to goodness” : “I act altruistically because it will lead to my happiness”
I think that these are two fantastic terms, and that they should be introduced into the “vocabulary of morality”.
I think what you meant is that for most people, their only terminal values are happiness and goodness. Terminal values belong to a person. Using the word “the” makes it sound like it’s some sort of inherent property of the universe (to me at least).
Nicely done!
Exactly! Not many people seem to understand this.
The former two lines felt like such a great place to end :(
Why bring up the possibility of intelligent design here? You already mention the alien-god of evolution which implies that there is no intelligent design (I think; I just read the wiki article for the first time quickly). Regardless, the origin of the universe/emotions doesn’t seem too relevant and felt like an awkward ending to me.
Likewise!! On both counts.
For the record, I went really hard on you here. I would say “don’t take it personally”, but I know that you won’t ;)
Nah, either one can trump the other, depending on the situation and the individual.
Thanks :)
But I bring that up right in the next paragraph! It fits with both, but do you really think it belongs with ‘become Christ-like’ over ‘become obedient to God’s will’ ? Or are you saying that I should double mention it it twice?
That’s the point, haha, they don’t know for sure because only God knows God’s will! As for animal rights, I know only a few Christians who are into it, out of all the many Christians I know, only two are vegetarian… most believe God gave man dominion over animals, which means we take care of them and eat them. Some will also misinterpret Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and cite this as God giving us permission to eat meat, but most will cite Genesis and man’s “dominion”
(sigh) If you really think I’m making that argument, or any argument (see my comment to your Part 1), then I really need to practice my writing. :(
(nods) Good, because this was more of my goal, to get people to rethink where to draw the boundary.
Oops, let me rephrase that to be more clear. “The only true terminal values are happiness and goodness.” Thanks. I do think it’s like some sort of inherent property of the universe or something.
You’re right!!!! That was silly of me. Ending on “emotion” just reminded me of that conversation and I wanted to get some feedback, but I shouldn’t have been so lazy and should have asked about it on an open thread or something.
:-)
To me, saying that it’s an inherent property of the universe sounds like “this is the way it is for everyone, and this is the way it always will be”. I don’t think either of those things are true. You’ve previously said that you think it’s true for the overwhelming majority of people, not everyone. I’m not sure what you think about “this is the way it always will be”. A simple argument against that is that you could just rewire someone’s brain to produce different drives.
Of course, this is just what I interpret “the only true terminal values are happiness and goodness” and “I do think it’s like some sort of inherent property of the universe or something” to imply. I sense that it’s a common interpretation, but I’m not sure.
Anyway:
1) I think semantics aside, we agree that a good deal of people posses these as their terminal virtues. (I think it’s less common than you do, but I do agree that it’s true for a good majority of people)
2) Semantics may be annoying, but they’re important for communicating, and communicating is important. It’s my impression that your writing could be a lot better if the semantics were improved.
My position has become a bit more extreme then. I am guessing it’s true for everyone, and I do think the universe itself is behind it. I suppose it could change, sure. Whether it’s an “inherent property of the universe” might come back to that word “inherent” and whether or not you think “inherent” includes “eternal.” I don’t think we disagree about anything real here.
Only a majority? So do you think: (1) Some people have no desire for personal happiness, (2) Some people have no desire for goodness, or (3) There is some other psychologically motivated end-in-itself that can’t be traced back to one of the two?