Happiness (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

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

OK

-Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness?

Yes, provided that said policies are inclusive and, on balance, do not create further social dislocation through prioritising certain 'paths' to happiness (sport, for instance).

I don't like the prioritisation of sport. It's a little like community... On the one hand it's great (positive identity, sense of belonging, etc.), yet on the other it can be insidious (exclusive, restrictive, etc.).

-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?

No. Intervention in such cases should be the preserve of the family and friends (and certain NGOs, I guess). That said, government could encourage those close to an individual to intervene (with care) when appropriate.

-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?

I would consider a sense of security to be more of an instrically valuable good than happiness. To my mind it's impossible to be happy without feeling secure/safe (physically, emotionally, etc.) as a prerequisite.

At a broader social level, I would also value hope above happiness. Hope tends to encourage progression, whereas happiness may encourage stagnation.

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

A combination of both (to a certain extent). To my mind it's an emotional state in part informed by a consideration of societal expectations and lessons learned over the course of one's life.

-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

I'd question what it is about religious belief that correlates with hapiness. Is it actually the religious dimension of belief, or is it belief in general?

Now go!

I'm tired, so don't be too mean .

 

[loquasagacious]

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?

Not at all inconsistent.

Your contention is tantamount to suggesting that the ends justify the means and collateral damage be damned. I would hope we are rather beyond that. For example if happiness alone was the goal why not lock everyone up and drug them out of their brains?

And of course defining happiness is problematic in itself and is very individual which suggests that people need the freedom to pursue what they believe is happiness - provided it does not infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Silver Persian]

Not at all inconsistent.

Your contention is tantamount to suggesting that the ends justify the means and collateral damage be damned. I would hope we are rather beyond that. For example if happiness alone was the goal why not lock everyone up and drug them out of their brains?

Butbut, you said

. 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.

And of course defining happiness is problematic in itself and is very individual which suggests that people need the freedom to pursue what they believe is happiness - provided it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Hmmm...I think the original question was asked under the condition that people were making bad decisions about their lives in terms of attaining optimal happiness. Do you think that people are always the best pursuers of their own happiness, and that state intervention is always going to be a hindrance?

 

[Iron]

Neither the individual or the state are the best pursuers of their own happiness imo. I am adamant on this point.

You must accept this if you conceed that human nature is geared towards evil/wrong-doing at the expense of another - which is the whole basis of statehood anyway

 

[DownInFlames]

Hmmm...I think the original question was asked under the condition that people were making bad decisions about their lives in terms of attaining optimal happiness. Do you think that people are always the best pursuers of their own happiness, and that state intervention is always going to be a hindrance?

I don't think that the state can know what the best way for someone to be happy is. How can you take a statistic and know how to intervene in an appropriate and helpful way to raise their "levels of happiness" ??

When it comes to happiness people are not always right, however intervention/hints from supportive friends and family seems to me to be the most effective way.

Also: how does one measure happiness? how can the government draw the line on who to fund and who to leave out of this happiness program? is the service available to everyone, or does a person need to be psychologically assessed before accessing the service?

Also Also: if the government "spoonfeeds" happiness, will the people who receive the funding/service learn how to help themselves, or simply begin to rely on others to make them happy? Can a person feel happy without the sense of fulfillment and satisfaction that they have made it happen?

 

[Silver Persian]

!!! Generator posted in one of my threads! I feel like I've seen a celebrity

Yes, provided that said policies are inclusive and, on balance, do not create further social dislocation through prioritising certain 'paths' to happiness (sport, for instance).

I don't like the prioritisation of sport. It's a little like community... On the one hand it's great (positive identity, sense of belonging, etc.), yet on the other it can be insidious (exclusive, restrictive, etc.).

Yeah, this is always going to be the problem with state provided services that mandate compulsory participation in things that, on average, are meant to promote happiness. Perhaps a state that facilitates happiness inducing activities without mandating them?

At a broader social level, I would also value hope above happiness. Hope tends to encourage progression, whereas happiness may encourage stagnation.

I think this is interesting, and I'm not sure how to respond. I suppose hope presupposes some kind of current suffering that will be resolved in the future...which mightn't make for the most pleasant experience, but it will provide some kind of motivation to improve existing problems. Good point...

I'd question what it is about religious belief that correlates with hapiness. Is it actually the religious dimension of belief, or is it belief in general?

So, would belief in freedom (for instance) have the same effect on happiness levels as belief in God? Interesting question - Iron would say no

Some people argue that it's not religious belief per se that correlates with happiness, but rather the sense of community and support networks that one gets through participation in a church.

I'm tired, so don't be too mean .

I'm never mean

 

[Iron]

Of course the happiness would come from social cohesion, but i'm still unsatisfied with the limited definition. Beyond community, I would say that Christianity only offers peace, which should be distinct from popular notions of happiness

 

[Silver Persian]

I don't think that the state can know what the best way for someone to be happy is. How can you take a statistic and know how to intervene in an appropriate and helpful way to raise their "levels of happiness" ??
When it comes to happiness people are not always right, however intervention/hints from supportive friends and family seems to me to be the most effective way.

I suppose I was imagining patterns of state intervention that would influence the way that society functions, rather than looking at particular individuals and intervening in their lives specifically. The state is perhaps the only social institution capable of imposing these broader changes. I agree that friends and families may be more effective at managing someone's unhappy life at a micro level, but if something about society as a whole is producing unhappiness, there is a limit to what personal acquaintances can do.

Also Also: if the government "spoonfeeds" happiness, will the people who receive the funding/service learn how to help themselves, or simply begin to rely on others to make them happy? Can a person feel happy without the sense of fulfillment and satisfaction that they have made it happen?

Hmm...well, I suppose the question is whether the government can play a role in facilitating happiness, without lumping it out like an "undeserved" welfare payment. Because I agree that the kind of model that you're talking about may discourage personal fulfilment. However, if the government provides opportunities and incentives for citizens to engage in activities that are statistically likely to promote happiness, this would seem to promote subjective well-being without undermining individuals' sense of self worth through dependency.

 

[DownInFlames]

I suppose I was imagining patterns of state intervention that would influence the way that society functions, rather than looking at particular individuals and intervening in their lives specifically. The state is perhaps the only social institution capable of imposing these broader changes. I agree that friends and families may be more effective at managing someone's unhappy life at a micro level, but if something about society as a whole is producing unhappiness, there is a limit to what personal acquaintances can do.





Hmm...well, I suppose the question is whether the government can play a role in facilitating happiness, without lumping it out like an "undeserved" welfare payment. Because I agree that the kind of model that you're talking about may discourage personal fulfilment. However, if the government provides opportunities and incentives for citizens to engage in activities that are statistically likely to promote happiness, this would seem to promote subjective well-being without undermining individuals' sense of self worth through dependency.

Hmmm that's a pretty interesting idea... I guess the question now is, what should the government promote?

For the factor about society as a whole that is producing unhappiness, I'd place my bets on stressful lifestyles.

 

[jb_nc]

bump for a good thread

reminder: research shows that people are happier when they live in an ethnically homogenous region.

so if the government should legislate happiness...

...all whites should live with other whites, et cetera

I've also finished the course so u can argue with me SP. I also heard u guyz got DBM for like 4 guest lectures.

 

[jb_nc]

-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

lol

 

[SylviaB]

No. The only real roles of government should be protection of rights and security.

 

[katie tully]

Should the government design policy in the pursuit of higher levels of social happiness?

How and what sort of policy? Is it the governments responsibility to ensure high levels of social happiness? How do you define "social happiness"

If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?
No, the government should stfu and gtfo of such things. People are responsible for their own decisions, their own happiness and "happiness" imo should not be regulated by, or be intervened in by the government.

Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?

IDK how to answer that

Is happiness an emotional state, a deliberative judgement about the state of one's life, a combination of both, or other.
I'd say it's a combination. You make a deliberate judgement which will impact the state of ones life and ultimately lead to an emotional state of either happiness/sadness. Being in a state of happiness may also influence the way you do make decisions, which could impact on future happiness, idk.

If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

Nah, because I already believe that certain religious beliefs equate to increased happiness in people, for whatever reason, but I still choose to find happiness outside of religion.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

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?

Yes.

-If people are making decisions for themselves that, on average, will result in suboptimal levels of happiness, should the government intervene?

It depends on a case-by-case basis. Generally the intervention should be coercive not forceful, if it occurs at all - e.g. a cigarette steep tax rather than ban.

-Is happiness the only intrinsically valuable good?

Generally, yes (I'm a utilitarian hedonist). But happiness can be achieved in many ways, so that's a bit of a loaded question.

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

Both.

-If it turned out that religious belief was positively correlated with happiness, would you become religious?

I believe religion is positively correlated with happiness. At least for those who convert to atheism (unlikely for those born irreligious). But me becoming religious again is about as possible as me bending spoons with my mind.

Besides there's a certain bittersweet happiness gained from knowing the true futility of life, as well as accurately understanding the science behind it without recourse to self delusion.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

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!

There's some good theories on happiness. I'm fond of this one: Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jb_nc]

There's some good theories on happiness. I'm fond of this one: Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not a theory of happiness.

It's a version of informed desire-fulfillment.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

That's not a theory of happiness.

It's a version of informed desire-fulfillment.

It's directly related to happiness, which is pretty obvious.

 

[jb_nc]

It's directly related to happiness, which is pretty obvious.

Yeah, and its related back to happiness with the idea, 'if you get these things you will be happy'.

It's not a theory, just a 'version' of a theory.

 

[Uncle]

These days happiness is a materialistic value.
Not happy with what you currently have?
You just want more.

 

[Silver Persian]

These days happiness is a materialistic value.
Not happy with what you currently have?
You just want more.

But would say that this is, in fact, not happiness at all, but rather a perversion of happiness?

If yes, what would a more authentic idea of happiness would involve?

(he inappropriately asked the troll).