Morality and Happiness

[tomdemaine]

This got no play in the Sklansky forum but might generate some interesting discussion here.

Should maximizing ones own personal happiness be a persons only goal in life or should a person give weight to things external to their own happiness equation?

For example should a person try to be as moral a person as they can and then maximize their happiness or choose for their level of morality that which maximizes their happiness?

Max (U) = (..., morality, ...)

or

Max (U) = (...)|morality

[Sephus]

the "should" needs to come with an "if..." for me to answer the question.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Should maximizing ones own personal happiness be a persons only goal in life or ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to be missing the 'goal' gene. But I've the lactose one !
Hard to see how we can do much that is not happiness oriented. Even if we put our socks on thinking "I'm going to do 3 things today that'll make me miserable" it could be argued that being miserable makes me happy.

Not to be confused with thinking that our 'choosing happiness' actually makes us happy.

luckyme

[tomdemaine]

But people do stop themselves from doing certain things that are enjoyable because of a moral code correct or not? If you could steal money and noone find out would you? If not is it because the guilt etc would make you unhappy or because of an abstract "morality" that you seek to either maximize or keep above a certain level.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But people do stop themselves from doing certain things that are enjoyable because of a moral code correct or not? If you could steal money and noone find out would you? If not is it because the guilt etc would make you unhappy or because of an abstract "morality" that you seek to either maximize or keep above a certain level.

[/ QUOTE ]

what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?
I just tried laying sideways to see if I could conjure up a situation where somebody does something, X, all the while believing that Y would make them happier.
Again, not that they're right, and they often overweight short-term satisfaction, but they don't choose X for it's misery value.

luckyme

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]


what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, that then is the first option where the extent of your morality is that level which makes you happiest given everything else.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, that then is the first option where the extent of your morality is that level which makes you happiest given everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to come up with a situation where a person makes the choice that they believe will increase their misery quotient. I'm not saying there isn't one, but it's eluding me right now.

luckyme

[Paragon]

I think the conscience is the evolutionary device to combine morality and satisfaction. Doesn't it just feel good to be honest and generous, even anonymously?

I used to cynically think that a conscience was a weakness that restricted freedom by creating guilt. Maybe you'd want everyone to have a conscience (so they'll be nice) except for you. Instead, now I think it is easy to see how a conscience is beneficial even for the individual, by allowing someone to easily experience satisfaction.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, that then is the first option where the extent of your morality is that level which makes you happiest given everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to come up with a situation where a person makes the choice that they believe will increase their misery quotient. I'm not saying there isn't one, but it's eluding me right now.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

How about something along the lines of falling on a grenade in a crowd of school kids? Would you argue that the knowledge of self sacrifice in the last instant of your life makes you happy enough to counteract the act itself?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, that then is the first option where the extent of your morality is that level which makes you happiest given everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to come up with a situation where a person makes the choice that they believe will increase their misery quotient. I'm not saying there isn't one, but it's eluding me right now.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

How about something along the lines of falling on a grenade in a crowd of school kids? Would you argue that the knowledge of self sacrifice in the last instant of your life makes you happy enough to counteract the act itself?

[/ QUOTE ]
The two maximising happiness reasons for that sort of behavior are:

1) being very unhappy in your future life if you don't do it.

2) maximising happiness in your past life by being the sort of person who would throw yourself on the grenade if the situation arose (or at least believing yourself to be that sort of person and discovering you were right).

I think its mainly the second.

chez

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, that then is the first option where the extent of your morality is that level which makes you happiest given everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to come up with a situation where a person makes the choice that they believe will increase their misery quotient. I'm not saying there isn't one, but it's eluding me right now.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

How about something along the lines of falling on a grenade in a crowd of school kids? Would you argue that the knowledge of self sacrifice in the last instant of your life makes you happy enough to counteract the act itself?

[/ QUOTE ]
The two maximising happiness reasons for that sort of behavior are:

1) being very unhappy in your future life if you don't do it.

2) maximising happiness in your past life by being the sort of person who would throw yourself on the grenade if the situation arose (or at least believing yourself to be that sort of person and discovering you were right).

I think its mainly the second.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been curious about how many people would actually make this choice...

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Hard to see how we can do much that is not happiness oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. In a more general sense, is it possible to do something that you don't want to do? Even if you are robbed at gunpoint and forced to give up your wallet, you do it because you want to do it, given your options. I cannot think of a possible act that was not performed by someone who wanted to do it.

~MagicMan

[madnak]

You seem to be defining happiness as more than pleasure but less than general utility. I think any answer is going to depend on where the line is.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the conscience is the evolutionary device to combine morality and satisfaction. Doesn't it just feel good to be honest and generous, even anonymously?

I used to cynically think that a conscience was a weakness that restricted freedom by creating guilt. Maybe you'd want everyone to have a conscience (so they'll be nice) except for you. Instead, now I think it is easy to see how a conscience is beneficial even for the individual, by allowing someone to easily experience satisfaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap, I think I just leveled up. Thanks.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


what would make you think that 'behaving morally' doesn't make some people happier than stealing some ones gum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, that then is the first option where the extent of your morality is that level which makes you happiest given everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to come up with a situation where a person makes the choice that they believe will increase their misery quotient. I'm not saying there isn't one, but it's eluding me right now.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

How about something along the lines of falling on a grenade in a crowd of school kids? Would you argue that the knowledge of self sacrifice in the last instant of your life makes you happy enough to counteract the act itself?

[/ QUOTE ]
The two maximising happiness reasons for that sort of behavior are:

1) being very unhappy in your future life if you don't do it.

2) maximising happiness in your past life by being the sort of person who would throw yourself on the grenade if the situation arose (or at least believing yourself to be that sort of person and discovering you were right).

I think its mainly the second.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been curious about how many people would actually make this choice...

[/ QUOTE ]

1.P(Granade = dud) > 0

2.xxx

3.Profit?

I really dunno, but maybe.

[Nielsio]

People act on their values. That's just a fact.

What's with all the doublespeak and what are you *really* trying to get at?

[BWToth]

psychological egoism

fact.
fact?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
This got no play in the Sklansky forum but might generate some interesting discussion here.

Should maximizing ones own personal happiness be a persons only goal in life or should a person give weight to things external to their own happiness equation?

For example should a person try to be as moral a person as they can and then maximize their happiness or choose for their level of morality that which maximizes their happiness?

Max (U) = (..., morality, ...)

or

Max (U) = (...)|morality

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's call it satisfaction instead of happiness.

The only reason for one to take any action whatsoever, is to try and get to a state of more satisfaction than the previous one.

The answer should then be obvious - If morality is important to you (directly or indirectly), you should care. Only if; and you should care in an amount proportional to the importance it has for you (again, directly or indirectly)

[tomdemaine]

So I should murder rape and steal if that is that is going to give me the most satisfaction?

edit : Or is it just that I will and should doesn't come into it?

[madnak]

I think the point he's making is that you will murder rape and steal if that gives you the most satisfaction. "Should" has little to do with it. It's possible to make this definitionally true, but I don't know how meaningful that is.

This debate strikes me as similar to the "when does life begin" debate. Despite potential for something interesting, it always ends up being fluff. Rather than, "why does life have value, and according to what criteria must that value be determined," the question becomes "when is the magical point where something arbitrary that nobody will define or explain happens?"

The term "happiness" is about as well-defined as the term "life." Therefore, it's virtually impossible to go anywhere until something of greater substance comes through.

But here's a relevant question, isolated based on this specific example. Most people will experience greater "unhappiness" than "happiness" from rape and murder. The pain of remorse and fragmented identity seems almost always to outweigh the pleasure of the act itself. Even many who do commit such acts find them to be ultimately unpleasant.

Is there anyone on earth who fully knows that such acts will be unpleasant and still commits them? And what's going on in such a person's mind? Is there anyone on earth who will truly find a net gain in satisfaction from these acts? And if so, are there any of these people who restrain themselves anyway? And what's going on in their minds?

[tomdemaine]

But then doesn't this make the idea of punishment completely ludicrous? If you'll do what you'll do regardless of external morality how is anything anybodies fault? We can lock people up to keep them out of harms way but doesn't punishment require choice?

[madnak]

Punishment is another topic entirely. So far the only way it has been justified in the sense you're talking about is through some call to an essentially divine "justice," but I believe such justifications tend to be inherently irrational. It's definitely hard to logically justify punishment on those grounds, regardless of whether you accept supernatural versions of morality and choice. As Hume pointed out, choice may actually make it harder to justify punishment.

Once again I'll issue my challenge - let's assume people make choices that go against an objective morality. Based on that, can you rationally support the claim that they should be punished? Please, I'd love for someone to step up to the plate on this. But I think your whole idea of punishment is irrational from the start.

So, no. This doesn't make the idea of punishment completely ludicrous. It was ludicrous from the start, this just brings that to your attention. As far as I can tell, if punishment makes sense with (supernatural) choice, it also makes sense without (supernatural) choice. And if punishment doesn't make sense with choice, it also doesn't make sense without choice.

My view is that, because our cultural beliefs include a very strong dogma that we must cause pain to anyone who does something "bad," most people believe in punishment. However, this belief is based on unexamined cultural assumptions. When the subject of choice is brought up, it leads people to examine their conditioning and identify punishment as the inherently fallacious construct it is. But only with respect to choice - they typically continue to avoid any such examination in a "normal" context, that is they take the idea that doesn't gel with their upbringing or conditioning and try to reject it, rather than evaluating it and the conditioning in order to determine which has a stronger rational basis.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]

Should maximizing ones own personal happiness be a person's only goal in life?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.