Yet Another "Axiom" Question - Page 4

KenProspero · #31 01-10-2007, 03:36 PM

No, at any length of time.

With the original question, the lunacy of this choice would be apparant in approximately 450 years.

KenProspero · #32 01-10-2007, 03:41 PM

How do you take into account the fact that in .... say 450 years, with doom impending, it is likely that humanity would realize what a truly stupid mistake they had made.

Sephus · #33 01-10-2007, 03:47 PM

people in this thread are obviously struggling with the definition of the word "happiness."

for me, "i wouldn't push the button" is the same as "i would be happier not pushing it," which contradicts the hypothetical.

almost everyone in this thread is saying they prefer to be less happy, because they believe they "value" things other than happiness. in my opinion, "concern for things outside of yourself" is really just a connection between your own happiness and other things.

so, if happiness isn't "the result of the fulfillment of our desires," what is it?

Sephus · #34 01-10-2007, 03:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you take into account the fact that in .... say 450 years, with doom impending, it is likely that humanity would realize what a truly stupid mistake they had made.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this idea makes you unhappy, it will be more than counterbalanced by the happiness that the button brings you.

KenProspero · #35 01-10-2007, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if this idea makes you unhappy, it will be more than counterbalanced by the happiness that the button brings you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Faustian bargain is always a sucker bet, even if generations down the line have to pay the price.

Sephus · #36 01-10-2007, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if this idea makes you unhappy, it will be more than counterbalanced by the happiness that the button brings you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Faustian bargain is always a sucker bet, even if generations down the line have to pay the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can it be a sucker bet if it makes me happier?

KenProspero · #37 01-10-2007, 03:53 PM

Sephus:

If you personally could find a drug that would make you orgasmatically ecstatic for the remainder of your long life (and for our first 100 callers, we'll throw in an additional 20 years of life expectancy) but the price is that you never leave the institution to which you've been committed (though to be fair, you won't even know you're there), would you take it?

I wouldn't.

Sephus · #38 01-10-2007, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sephus:

If you personally could find a drug that would make you orgasmatically ecstatic for the remainder of your long life (and for our first 100 callers, we'll throw in an additional 20 years of life expectancy) but the price is that you never leave the institution to which you've been committed (though to be fair, you won't even know you're there), would you take it?

I wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

and when you say "i wouldn't," it's because (as i said in my original post) we disagree about what the word "happy" (in this case ecstatic) means.

KenProspero · #39 01-10-2007, 04:19 PM

I'm not sure we disagree on the definition.

I just think that at times there are more important things than being happy.

btw, I'm not being critical of your choices, I'd just choose differently.

Sephus · #40 01-10-2007, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that at times there are more important things than being happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

then we do disagree on the definition. things are or aren't important to you because of how they affect your happiness (or how you perceive them to do so).

edit: if you begin to define happiness as "the thing that results when i get what i want" then you will see why i'm saying you can't "prefer to be less happy."