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?
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?