Would You Rather Be Happy Or Good?

[Linsejko]

That sounds like basic, simple, good, non-obvious instruction, but it doesn't hold.

The most serious flaw is that statement that

believing that you will become happy by being good
=
impossible to be good because this creates a selfish motivation

That's very simplistic, and won't hold up to scrutiny.

On another point, I want to say that the stereotypically 'happy' people are not always good people. Then again, I think what we really find is that truly happy people, people who experience deep fulfillment, are good people. At the same time, truly good people, who just want to be selfless/loving, are happy.

I don't know if a clear correlation can be drawn to point either to either... I think that, perhaps, if you can just get one right the other might fall in to place; because happiness is so ambiguous (I can speak of being truly happy, or different kinds of happiness, of the difference between happiness and joy, etc.), being good is usually said to create happiness, and no one examines the opposite.

.L

 

[Dissident]

That sounds like basic, simple, good, non-obvious instruction, but it doesn't hold.
The most serious flaw is that statement that
believing that you will become happy by being good
=
impossible to be good because this creates a selfish motivation

That's very simplistic, and won't hold up to scrutiny.

Lets do the scrutiny then, thats the interesting part.
Im basing my satement on the almost universal moral system that seems to rule the world and that is Punishment and Reward. It is spread both from the state and religion, you always get some benefit from doing "the rignt thing" and get punished when doing otherwise. This only creates hypocrites and rascals who try to do the "bad" things and avoid the consecuences and do the "good" things only to get the benefits. This system is the one of nature with pain and pleasure which works just fine with animals, but i think we could do better.

On another point, I want to say that the stereotypically 'happy' people are not always good people. Then again, I think what we really find is that truly happy people, people who experience deep fulfillment, are good people. At the same time, truly good people, who just want to be selfless/loving, are happy.

We are talking of psichology, there are a number of motivations and reasons for peoples actions, and apearence is not always the way they truly feel. Saying that something not always happens that way not necesarily invalidates the argument. If you see someone "happy" that enjoys others suffering and is crappy person then he most likely isnt really happy. The question is when you find someone who is good and happy: Is he happy because he is good or good because he is happy?

I don't know if a clear correlation can be drawn to point either to either... I think that, perhaps, if you can just get one right the other might fall in to place; because happiness is so ambiguous (I can speak of being truly happy, or different kinds of happiness, of the difference between happiness and joy, etc.), being good is usually said to create happiness, and no one examines the opposite.
.L

We cant have a discussion in those terms, lets define happiness then.

 

[Linsejko]

Im basing my satement on the almost universal moral system that seems to rule the world and that is Punishment and Reward... This system is the one of nature with pain and pleasure which works just fine with animals, but i think we could do better.

That is a rather interesting truth. I don't see it as bringing any completion to the issue, though, so I'll keep that in mind as I try and fill in the implications created in my prior statements.

If a good person knows that they will receive a benefit, (in this case, becoming happy), by doing good, that does not, then, absolutely affect their motivation for doing the good act. It is the motivation of the individual (e.g., self-interest or selflessness) that determines their morality.

The other part of this is the common sense part. People that just want happiness, selfishly, don't also seem to be the kind to go out and do good deeds to acquire that happiness. They typically turn to the vices of life. Even for the more philosophical of them, the happiness acquired by being good would seem to require too much selflessness before return on their investment, you know? It doesn't fit with that frame of mind.

So knowledge itself doesn't inherently corrupt in this case, I don't think, at least because the ones who would take advantage of this information, wouldn't.

A man stands before a king. "Serve yourself for 10 years, or serve the needy for 10 years," the king says. The man stands deliberating, and decides to serve others. One year into this, he is told by the king's advisors that there will be a great reward for him.

Is the goodness of his decision invalidated by his knowledge?

If you see someone "happy" that enjoys others suffering and is crappy person then he most likely isnt really happy.

We can easily infer from our intuition that that kind of happiness is depraved, twisted.

The question is when you find someone who is good and happy: Is he happy because he is good or good because he is happy?

This is what I was trying to get at, I guess, only I postulated that it was potentially an all-roads-lead-to-each-other effect. At the very least, goodness seems to easily lead to happiness for me. I have seen this take effect in people's lives personally, and is, to me, self-evident. The opposite potentially may be true, but I can't say for sure. The question is, how else is one to attain that 'true' happiness, without being good, then? The kind of pure happiness, the kind of joy, that would lead to one becoming selfless?

I hear the word 'enlightenment' knocking on my door, begging to be discussed. I'm not sure I want to give in.

In a sense, I have thus defined happiness- joy that leads to one becoming selfless/good (the two seem inseparable in my mind currently).

I hope this post isn't a bit convoluted. ???

.L

 

[Oblivious]

I understood.

One thing I would like to contribute is a more holistic view of happiness and goodness. First I make a few assumptions.

A happy person might not be good. This has been discussed.

A truly good person might still not be happy. Why?

I postulate that while the goodness of an individual is that individual's decision and does affect how he attains happiness, his happiness is largely a result of his environment. The individual can work to change it, however that only goes to emphasize the importance of the environment in determining happiness.

Recently there has been quite a catastrophe going on in Myanmar/Burma, and while I expect there to be good people there, I cannot expect them to be very happy. Wading about in disease ridden waters filled with the corpses of your family and others with little hope of ever returning to life as you knew it would make Ghandi a little bitchy perhaps.

It is my opinion that while happiness and goodness do affect each other, they are not the only things that do. A good person may very well turn evil because life has been cruel and he does not see the merit in bothering to be good. The reward system. Trauma is defined as good intentioned and logical decisions met with pain and failure.

So to answer the chicken egg question.

He is happy because his goodness has been affirmed and rewarded, which leads him to do more good. A virtuous cycle, everyone's happy.

Now to answer claims of selfishness.

Goodness is not just caring for others, but also yourself. If you cannot make yourself happy, you should not be bothering about other people. To be a good socialist, one must first be a good capitalist. You are part of this world; your happiness is the world's happiness. To share happiness, you must first have it.

So to answer the original question: Happy then good. I think to feel.

 

[Dissident]

That is a rather interesting truth. I don't see it as bringing any completion to the issue, though

I didnt mean to arrive at a conclussion, just explaining myself a little further while waiting for you to say why it didnt hold up scrutiny. Just saying its wrong without giving reasons seems to go against the spirit of a discussion to me.

If a good person knows that they will receive a benefit, (in this case, becoming happy), by doing good, that does not, then, absolutely affect their motivation for doing the good act. It is the motivation of the individual (e.g., self-interest or selflessness) that determines their morality.

Of course it does, its self-interest. If they know they will get rewarded for the good act, then the reward increases the motivation for doing it, even to the point of being the only motivation.

The other part of this is the common sense part. People that just want happiness, selfishly, don't also seem to be the kind to go out and do good deeds to acquire that happiness. They typically turn to the vices of life.

I dont mean it like that. Im talking about for example people that go to church only when they need something, people who give to charity to avoid taxes, people who do favors only to be able to ask for something back later, people that only avoid breaking the law because of the consecuences and not because they believe in them, etc.

A man stands before a king. "Serve yourself for 10 years, or serve the needy for 10 years," the king says. The man stands deliberating, and decides to serve others. One year into this, he is told by the king's advisors that there will be a great reward for him.

Is the goodness of his decision invalidated by his knowledge?

What knowledge? The man didnt know the reward was coming, so his action does have moral value, because the reward wasnt the reason why he did it.

At the very least, goodness seems to easily lead to happiness for me. I have seen this take effect in people's lives personally, and is, to me, self-evident.

What im saying is: What happens when it doesnt? What if someone does good and is selfless, etc, and he doesnt see any rewards, and sees corrupt people, liers, etc. which everything seems to turn out well to?
This happens, you know? There is noone looking from the sky giving each one what he deserves. If the punishment and reward system is put in peoples minds and then it doesnt turn out the way it supposed to, we find ourselves with the world we have, with renegated and dissapointed people because of an artificial and baseless moral system.

The true moral value (goodness) comes from being in such a peace with yourself (happiness) that you do the good thing even if it is not in your best interest, that you wouldnt do the bad thing even if the consecuences were good for you.



-

 

[Devercia]

Kohlberg tried to define morality(goodness) from a psychological and rational point of view. He stated that people develope into moral stages. Each stage of thinking is a POV that will solve the larger issues of moral ambiguities. Each stage higher will solve more of those issues without conflicting moral objections. People start in stage one and develope to stage 6, but most stop around stage 4.

In stage one, goodness is defined arbitrarily or by punishment/reward. What is good is defined by what ever will be good for the person considering the ambiguity. When I was a child, I remember my brother doing something 'bad.' He was warned. He did it again and was punished. I did it and was immediately punished. I had thought I would receive a warning, and therefor could reap the rewards of the bad act without the punishment. In my view the act was not bad if it was done only once. This sort of moral delema that the current stage cannot solve prompts rethinking and reconsideration of what it is to be moral which leads to development. To this type of person, all 'bad' acts must be punished, regardless of circumstance. Ask a stage one person why killing is bad, and they will tell you it is bad just because. If they elaborate, it because 'you will go to jail/hell.'

In stage two, goodness is more of what can be called a fair deal. It is cooperation. Two brothers cooperating to steal cookies is an example. If one does the stealing and the other distracts, the stealer is morally obligated to provide the distracter with his share. Altruistic concerns are directed towards specific people during this stage. Recognition of the well being of others beyond your cooperation prompts growth out of this stage. Ask someone in stage 2 why murder is bad, and they will say that it is not fair. If the person to be killed has killed, its ok to kill them because it would be fair. While stage 1 is 'eye for an eye' stage 2 consideres what is 'fair.' A stage 2 judge might require an accedental eye gouger to pay for medical bills and lost wages with some pain and suffering money as well.

In stage 3, morality is defined by the good of your peers. This stage is entered most often during puberty. Tribal societies may not develope beyond stage 3, as their society is made up entirely of peers(regardless of intra-tribal hierarchy). People in this stage will form cliques and sub-cultures, conforming to them readily. This is where you see gangs, teens all wearing a uniform of sorts. Deviation from what is 'normal' within the clique is immoral, as is ignoring trends. Clothing and grooming ARE a social statement in this stage. The recognition of the validity of other social groups promotes growth to the next stage. Ask someone in stage 3 why murder is bad, they will tell you because no one else kills. If they are soldiers, it is ok because everyone is killing. A stage 3 judge will sentence based on what the other judges have done in simular cases.

In stage 4, morality is defined by the good of society. Is fighting moral? No, if everyone fought society would crumble. Yes, it is moral, because without it people would be rude and insulting and disregard eachother without fear of his fellow man, and society would crumble. The morals of you society are a clear difiner of morality in this stage. Most adults don't move beyond this stage. Peole in this stage are more conserned with the wellbeing of all rather than justice. Rebellion is not tolerated, even if it is just, unless it is believed the end is for the better of everyone despite the means. Ask someon is stage four if killin is bad. They will sa it is bad because if everyone killed society would weaken. If they say it is ok, it is because the society would strengthen. A stage 4 judge sentences based on the benifit to society. If the murderer has a curable mental condition, its likely best to treat it than to punish him in prison and making him the states liability.

Stage 5 and 6 are often hard to distinguish. Depending on the circumstances, stage 6 may not even exists. Stage 5 defins morality based on harmony rather than justice like stage 4. The difference here is that stage 5 recognizes that law is not justice. Law is more a social contract the a moral obligation. Stage 6 recognises that the many can opress the few; that even when most everyone agrees, that does not make some ting right. To stage 6, morality is more about a universal principle, whatever the reasoning behind that principle may be. Ask a stage 5 if killing is wrong, they will say yes, because we have all agreed not to kill each other; no, because we all recgnize each others right to kill when justified. A stage 5 judge will sentence based on what socitey has agreed is just in the form of law. They do recognize that law is not justice, but believe that in most cases it is so long as the majority think it fair and acceptable. Stage 6 will decide regardless of what others think is right or have agreed to do. Their morality is based on principle independent from society and personal beliefs. Stage six judges are often creative sentencers, perfering justice over harmony. To stage 6, justice creates harmony, not the other way around.

Essentially each stage is a broadening of understanding from the previous. People settle in their stage as long as they do not encounter situations that their stage can't handle. Stage 5 thinkers are very democratic. Suggest that the majority can oppress the minority, and they will likely adopt stage 6 thinking, atleast for that issue. People do not have the necessary understanding to recognize the validity of moral thinking of a person 2 stages above them. Jesus, Ghandi, Socretese: were all stage 6, all of them were killed.

Each stage includes the thinking of the previous with additional breadth. Stage 5/6 understands why a stage four believes something wrong and uses stage 4 arguments. It becomes stage 5/6 when harmony and justice are not the same thing. The person in stage four assumes that harmony is justice, often because they ignore when the two are separate, or do not solidify the distinction in memory when they make it.

 

[CowSavior]

Well, In the sense that good meant being a good person, I'd much rather be good than happy, because that way I'd make a lote more people around me happy regardless of how happy I was.

However, if the meaning of good were that I was always well behaved, then I'd rather be happy, because just because I'm never BEING good doesnt mean that I'm always too terribly bad.

But also, in a way, "good" and "happy" have a very close connection, which causes this question to be very hard to answer...

 

[Ermine]

I think people will always be happy in the long run if they do what makes them happy, and what is good for them personally, and don't violate other people's rights to do what makes them happy. (within reason)

 

[Privateer]

I am currently neither, as my own nature makes it incredibly difficult to live up to my own definition of what makes a person 'good', which is, of course, what I aspire to be. I am far closer to my own definition of 'evil', to be honest, which causes me a good deal of dismay.

 

[Zero]

Since happiness and goodness are rather subjective I would rather have to say neither. Ultimately I would like to have truth, no matter the disappointment that might follow. Then again, let's say I was to obtain some truth, wouldn't that qualify as my happiness? Isn't seeking and understanding what I thrive off of? In addition to that isn't discussing with people our ideas and learning more something to thrive off of?

I enjoy new information, perhaps not on every single subject under the sun, but I do enjoy new information. In addition I may even thrive off of or "enjoy" engaging in arguments, getting "riled up", sometimes just to see the results of interaction with the other person. It's "fun", but trying (and tiring) after a while.

Though in the end, I do not see the absolute importance of happiness or goodness.

Good is very subjective (and I would like to point out that as far as a word is concerned, it’s vague). It changes with culture, knowledge and time. At one time what we thought was bad is no longer bad and now we may even view understandings of the past as unhealthy, (mentally or emotionally) damaging and bad to our current culture. It’s also clear that in other cultures they may not see the same things we do as “bad”. Good appears to be what is not counter culture, what is beneficial to the current culture and society as well as what we can perceive with our knowledge as providing people with healthier, happier lives. “Good” can be easily used to manipulate people, to control the masses. It’s also something of a necessarily ideal. What is “good” keeps people functioning together. On a smaller scale, to the single person, good = happiness. If you are good, if you have the good products, the good life, you will be happy. On a moral scale good is defined in a way that will be beneficial to everyone who follows it. If everyone is good, or rather if everyone is nice and have the same values and whatever else we contribute to “good”, everyone should be taken care of. This is beneficial for our society, despite the fact that it does call for a lack of individuality and independence (things we label as good).

Individuality somewhat appears to be promoted because it will help this materialistic era. Ignorance and isolation is important to the any industry or function, which wants to be able to guide people’s actions. The standards for “good” are impossible… So there are products and guidance that will make people good or provide them with the tools to be good. We also have contradictory expectations. Be brave, different and independent, but this is contradictory to survival in a culture that tells you what to wear and how to wear it… To be too different is to be ostracized. People are easily manipulated with this method. Even I’m manipulated, because everyone is… it’s survival… We must depend on some type of system, if not on other people.

Anyway, that seems a little off topic, at least I’m getting there. I shouldn’t turn this into a book… My point is that “good” is merely a way of looking at things. It greatly depends on some type of benefit. Something or someone, if not all, must benefit. The problem is that not everyone can benefit from our current systems and values. The set up is limited, otherwise everything would get too complicated to contain… Good and bad are like left and right in a sense. They’re used to guide people around.

Personally, I don’t really believe in “good” or “evil”. It would seem a good person is simply someone who falls into line and recites back to culture and society what it taught the person. Thus what is an evil person? If the evil person is the one who steals, because they’re starving is the good person the one who turns the evil person in? What of the person who does nothing? Would the good person pay for the stolen food? What would be the consequences of these actions? Can an evil person be harmed by a good person and if a good person can harm an evil person is that person really good?

[FONT=&quot]Happiness is a little less vague than good, because we can definitely feel better. In our culture happiness is often associated with good. If you do the right things you will be happy and people want to be happy… But what makes people happy is subjective and manipulated. How do you thrive? People will find different answers for that. There isn’t any ultimate life or goal to achieve. I think the reality of it is that people have to find what it is to be satisfied…. Which is seemingly impossible, but for brief moments. [/FONT]

 

[Frosty]

Would You Rather Be Happy Or Good?

I'm one of those annoying creatures who often fails to agree to the constraint of a "false" dilemma. But a lot hangs on the definition of the words.

I don't like "good" as a state of being. e.g. for much of my life I have tried to be a "good person", a "good son", a "good husband", a "good Christian", and so on. The older I get, the less likely I am to agree to the idea that there is any such state of being if one tries to use the moral sense of the word "good".

But if you use it in the sense of "good" meaning something like "properly functioning" or "functioning in the right way", or perhaps "functioning optimally", then I think I'd like to be like that.

So given that definition, I would rather be good than be happy. Not sure WHY I prefer good to happy ... but perhaps its because happiness is a subjective state, whereas good holds the promise of something objective, attached to a transcendent reality.

 

[Zero]

I find it interesting that some of us have questioned the meaning of Good/Happy and others have actually answered the question or admitted to some reality of Goodness and Happiness.

Even though it's a bit off topic, it seems essential to know...
Do you Believe in Good as a reality?
I (painstakingly) went back through the thread to see what people replied and make a guess at who would submit to what.
Out of 18 it would seem that 12 would say that Good is not an absolute.
6 would say that Good/Evil exists, though the wording itself is a bit subjective.

Out of curiosity, I would like to know if you believe in Good as in comparison to Evil? Do you believe Good(evil) as an underlining reality? I do not expect a winded explanation, it is purposely a "Yes" or "No" question. I want to tally and compare what I thought everyone would say to what they will actually say.


As a sidenote: In going back through the thread I FINALLY found the 1-6 morality scale. I will have to look into it more. I'm not sure where I am on this scale. Of course I follow society's rules in order to survive. Everyday I live carefully according to culture and society and try not to let little annoyances bother me. I try to make it so my life is easy... I try to make it so that "flow" happens. If someone isn't looking where they're going in the grocery store and they happen to be coming in my direction I try to stand out of the way, slip through crowds, pick up things people drop right in front of me and smile and nod when someone is talking my ear off for no particular reason. I seem like a nice person, I just want everything to work and be effective. Also if you just nod and smile you get away faster.

However I do discuss, privately, my actual feelings towards our society. I'm the sort who might say the ends justifies the means. I once told my brother, in absolute seriousness, we should sterilize stupid people. There was more to the argument and I'm pretty sure some of my... resolve would offend any "decent" person. If it were up to me only committed, educated, financially stable couples, who've had a course in child rearing (and maybe psychology), would be allowed to reproduce. I might go so far as to say that children should be genetically altered to some extent. To flush out diseases (perhaps implanting genes that would prevent [certain] disease) mostly or disabilities, but this sort of extreme would have to be carefully monitored. What is a disability and what is a harmless mutation? Anyway, that seems off the subject, but keeping someone from reproducing is a violation of "rights" and most people, I assume, would find many problems with such an idea. I know implementing something like that would be nearly impossible, but it's a dream. However, is such a fantasy a crime against morality? I'm not sure if I really fit into a scale of moral goodness.

 

[Frosty]

Do you Believe in Good as a reality?

Yes. Both "moral" good and "functioning correctly"-type good

Out of curiosity, I would like to know if you believe in Good as in comparison to Evil? Do you believe Good(evil) as an underlining reality?

I believe in Good as an absolute.
I believe in Evil as a state relative to Good (i.e. an absence of Good).

I understand the relationship between Good and Evil to be similar to the relationship between Light and Dark (dark is the absence of light) and Hot and Cold (cold is the absence of heat/energy).

 

[Dissident]

I find it interesting that some of us have questioned the meaning of Good/Happy and others have actually answered the question or admitted to some reality of Goodness and Happiness.

Even though it's a bit off topic, it seems essential to know...
Do you Believe in Good as a reality?¨[...]
Out of curiosity, I would like to know if you believe in Good as in comparison to Evil? Do you believe Good(evil) as an underlining reality? I do not expect a winded explanation, it is purposely a "Yes" or "No" question. I want to tally and compare what I thought everyone would say to what they will actually say.

Thats a good question. I usually use the word good in the socially accepted way (to make it simple, what most people believe to be good), now if i have to say wether good/evil actually exist i would say no. It comes down to the posibility to make an universaly valid moral code, wich i dont think is posible beyond some basic negative rights that should be respected at all costs, but thats not enough. Believing in god makes it easier since that god is the one who defines and guarantees what is good/evil, i lack that easy way out.

I try to make it so my life is easy... [...] I seem like a nice person, I just want everything to work and be effective. Also if you just nod and smile you get away faster.

That brings the previous question, if an action is good, does the reason for doing it make it more or less good? or should the action be judged independently of the reason/intention.

Anyway, that seems off the subject, but keeping someone from reproducing is a violation of "rights" and most people, I assume, would find many problems with such an idea. I know implementing something like that would be nearly impossible, but it's a dream. However, is such a fantasy a crime against morality? I'm not sure if I really fit into a scale of moral goodness.

How about leting them have only one children? That would let them eperience being parents (so it wouldnt violate their rights, as much atleast), but would make them disapear eventually, id vote for that

 

[loveofreason]

Discussion on morality and Kohlberg's Dilemma has been moved:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=427

 

[Quest for Liberty]

I would rather be happy than good because if I was always happy, then I wouldn't feel guilty when I hurt people, and when they decided to not be friends with me anymore, I wouldn't care, I would still be happy If I end up being homeless, still happy. I understand that this is supposed to be a philosophical question but I don't understand why someone would choose to be good rather than happy.

 

[Anti-socialite]

Happy. Definitely. I learned that early on in life. It didn't matter what I did, I was always hated and treated like sh** because no one wanted to understand me. Parents included. Oh but it was mandatory that I understand everyone else. Either that of "you're letting the devil use you". This has a lot to do with why I'm against corporal punishment for children.

 

[Quest for Liberty]

corporal punishment within reason is ok...

 

[Vrecknidj]

... but I don't understand why someone would choose to be good rather than happy.

Really? I get that maybe you wouldn't opt for it, but you can't understand?

Dave

 

[Jesin]

Really? I get that maybe you wouldn't opt for it, but you can't understand?

I posted exactly the same thing in different words a while ago in a different thread.
[/offtopic]

 

[Quest for Liberty]

I see my happiness as dictated by myself solely. me being good is decided by others. maybe I don't care about being good, because that is trying to fit into someone else's role of good. Me fitting my role of good, creates happiness for myself. If that happens to piss off enough people, then I accept the punishment.

 

[Mischz]

I thought about the question for a bit. Read the replies etc.

I find that I cannot answer the question. These are my reasons, feel free to refute me.

1. "Happy" and "Good" are incomparable.

Taken apart as distinct entities, one is an independent state ("happy") while the other is dependent ("good"). "Happy" is the reason my left brain decides on when I feel an elevation of emotion when dopamine is produced in my brain. "Good" on the other hand, is situational and people-dependent.

I can compare "apple" and "pear" because they contain similar properties (thus the basis of comparison). But not "good" and "happy" because they are fundamentally different.

2. The link between "Happy" and "Good" is tenuous. At the most, speculative.

The question assumes that there is a relation between the two (i.e. "rather", "or"). Given that I accept this speculation for discussion's sake, I will have to assume a relation that is either cause-effect or correlational. A 'clearer' question will result:

"Being Good makes me Happy" (and other variants)

Two functions on one plane. We'll end up arguing semantics.

3. There is no 3.

I conclude.

 

[Dissident]

For the sake of discussion, Ill try.

1- Imagine you face a situation where you have 2 choices, one you believe to be moraly correct (good) but it will bring a lot of trouble and hardships, it will make your life miserable; the other you believe to be wrong but it will result in big advantages for you, something you value and enjoy and will make you happy (love, money, whatever).
Would it be legitimate to ask wether you rather do the right thing or be happy?

I hope this is a decent example:
If a fat person enjoys eating very much and it makes him happy but being on diet means a constant struggle that makes he feel miserable and unsatisfied; and he decides that he would rather live 45 years happy than 70 in agony. Can we say that he did a bad choice because the right thing would be to get in shape and live a healthy life with his family, etc.?

2- What is wrong with semantics?

3- Oh right, there is no 3.

I think the question is just to trigger discussions and reevaluate some concepts.

 

[Mischz]

For the sake of discussion, Ill try.

1- Imagine you face a situation where you have 2 choices, one you believe to be moraly correct (good) but it will bring a lot of trouble and hardships, it will make your life miserable; the other you believe to be wrong but it will result in big advantages for you, something you value and enjoy and will make you happy (love, money, whatever).
Would it be legitimate to ask wether you rather do the right thing or be happy?

2- What is wrong with semantics?

3- Oh right, there is no 3.

Why does it feel like I'm being patronised. LOL.

What you mentioned is the Heinz Dilemma that someone else mentioned. It sounds more like a good-right/bad-wrong than a good/happy.

Philosophically speaking, I can't discuss right/wrong. They are social constructs - too subjective, too contextual.

Thus my resolution is a personal one - an individual has the right to decide what he wants and then bear the consequences of his actions, of which are usually known.

"I will die if I kill someone, ceteris paribus." And if he does it knowingly, gets a death sentence and dies, kudos to him. ><"

 

[Dissident]

Why does it feel like I'm being patronised. LOL.

It wasnt my intention, sorry.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

That would be because you are in a small grapple for higher ground in your display of wisdom. It's his automatic 'teacher' instinct.

 

[Dissident]

Thanks Cabbo, you fixed my life.

 

[Mischz]

It wasnt my intention, sorry.

It's okay I was kidding. =)

That would be because you are in a small grapple for higher ground in your display of wisdom. It's his automatic 'teacher' instinct.

I don't really mind!!

 

[Vrecknidj]

I'm being playful here. So, please take my comments that way. But, of course, I'm hoping to find out if there's stuff hidden behind it all.

Philosophically speaking, I can't discuss right/wrong. They are social constructs - too subjective, too contextual.

This is part of the fun, I hope. Is it really the case that right/wrong judgments are social constructs? (Regarding morals. Regarding math, for instance, I'm gonna say "no, they're not.") Or, rather, to make the discussion more meaningful, how about this...

"Can you find an example of a right/wrong judgment that is either a) universal (that is, everyone in every culture actually will come to the same decision), or b) objective (that is, is true for everyone in every culture, even if individuals choose to violate that truth)?"

Thus my resolution is a personal one - an individual has the right to decide what he wants and then bear the consequences of his actions, of which are usually known.

Why would individuals have that right?

Dave

 

[Anti-socialite]

corporal punishment within reason is ok...

In your opinion. MY opinion is that it is wrong.

 

[Mischz]

"Can you find an example of a right/wrong judgment that is either a) universal (that is, everyone in every culture actually will come to the same decision), or b) objective (that is, is true for everyone in every culture, even if individuals choose to violate that truth)?"

No I can't.

Why would individuals have that right?

I realised, after reading Hobbes ("natural/universal rights") and Hume (is-ought debate) that rights seem to be utterly artificial. It appears to eventuate to a discussion of power.

"Survival of the fittest" is the only clearing I see in this case.

Generally I feel like I have been set adrift into an ocean with no bearings or navigational tools. I'm trying my best but it seems like I'm going further and further away from your original question! ><"

 

[Perseus]

I'd sooner be happy. Guardians (SJ) may prefer to be good.