tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4244151791015816011..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: E2.0: Discussion 2: Happiness and Absence of SufferingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81319799096195641552008-01-07T13:13:00.000-07:002008-01-07T13:13:00.000-07:00Atheist Observer,Fyfe himself clarified that there...Atheist Observer,<BR/><BR/>Fyfe himself clarified that there is not a huge conflict between happiness theory and desire-fulfillment theory (in the form of a desire for happiness), but that desire-fulfillment generally leads to much more consistent solutions in terms of satisfaction across both emotion and non-emotion based desires.<BR/><BR/>I might even go so far as to suggest that the sense of satisfaction is rarely actually achieved in happiness theory. Using Fyfe's example of the experience machine, such a proposition is likely most typically rejected since happiness is less satisfying than desire-fulfillment perhaps due to the intangible, fleeting nature of happiness. One piece of cake might make you happy, but one may be happier still to endulge in two.<BR/><BR/>Your request for an explanation on "why we seek to fulfill desires" seems a little obtuse. The roots of happiness and desires are very similar: our brain. Emotions, impulses, intuitions, and beliefs are the pool of resources by which our desires are formed. Evolutionary Psychology is a field that is coming out all the time explaning the attraction to pleasure. Additionally, cognitive dissonance and the sense of fairness also play substantial roles. <BR/><BR/>Some desires may be more emotion than belief driven or vice-versa. Desire utilitarianism simply helps explain why we choose some desires over others in our day-to-day activities. Why focus on desires over emotion? The fact that the collective nature of our desires is much more receptive to malleability than emotions. Additionally, the step from desire to action is much more direct and discernable than guessing one's emotional state from their actions.<BR/><BR/>If desire-fulfillment can so easily explain happiness theory (as you yourself admit) in addition to best address instances where happiness theory falls short, I seriously do not understand how you can turn around and say that the two approaches to our actions have no bearing on each other. <BR/><BR/>They both work, it would just seem that desire-fulfillment works more consistently. And you're going to need much more than a god-of-the-gaps rationale to honestly dismiss it.Uber Miguelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17903598951047377349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1746756396624149822008-01-06T10:26:00.000-07:002008-01-06T10:26:00.000-07:00Alonzo,You keep arguing that happiness theory and ...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>You keep arguing that happiness theory and desire utilitarianism conflict. From your description of it in your books and posts, I fail to anywhere that this is the case. DU says we act to fulfill desires (or cause states of affairs to be true, if you think the distinction worthwhile). Happiness theory could easily be read to say we fulfill desires because that contributes to our happiness, satisfaction, or well-being. As far as I can tell DU in and of itself never gives any explanation for why we seek to fulfill desires.<BR/>Personally, for some reason you have not made clear, you object to the idea of desire fulfillment for a specific purpose. Whether we fulfill desires for a single underlying purpose, or two, or many does not contradict DU until DU includes some integral hypothesis that is invalidated by a particular underlying reward mechanism driving it.<BR/>As long as happiness theory talks about an underlying theory of motivation, and DU fails to address one, anything one says about one theory has virtually no bearing upon the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75565651191394995732008-01-06T05:58:00.000-07:002008-01-06T05:58:00.000-07:00Doug S.Doug S.I do not see how your first 'problem...<B>Doug S.</B><BR/><BR/><B>Doug S.</B><BR/><BR/>I do not see how your first 'problem' is a problem. People seek the happiness of others. This can be expressed in terms of a "desire that others are happy". In the experience machine does not allow one to act so so as to realize (make real or make true) the proposition "others are happy." So, what the experience machine produces lacks value.<BR/><BR/>Unless you are saying that people can value the happiness of others directly - that through some mechanism not yet discovered the mere fact that B is made happy motivates A to act - that B's happiness provides a 'reason for action' that motivates A to act in a certain way independent of A's mental states. And that would be a tough claim to defend.<BR/><BR/>Your 'other problem,' that people find value in books, movies, and computer games, is not a problem either.<BR/><BR/>The argument says that if the happiness theory were true, no person would have a reason to object to a life inside the happiness machine. Some people do object to life inside the happiness machine. Therefore, the happiness theory fails. It does not accurately explain or predict people's choices.<BR/><BR/>Desire fulfillment theory still allows that people have a desire for happiness and for pleasure. It allows that people can have desires that are fulfilled by watching a movie or playing a video game. In fact, it would clearly fail if it predicted that no person could every enjoy a movie or a book.<BR/><BR/>However, it explains the value of watching a movie or reading a book in terms of realizing states of affairs that the agent desires. There are desires to be entertained and to engage in vicarious experiences. That there are some desires that can be fulfilled in this way does not prove that it is not the case that there are other desires that cannot.<BR/><BR/>Any more than the existence of some blue marbles proves that no marbles are red.<BR/><BR/>Desire fulfillment theory even allows that some people would voluntarily choose to enter a happiness machine. The person with an overwhelming desire "that I be happy" will enter the happiness machine, even in a desire-utilitarian account, because the happiness machine <I>realizes the proposition, 'I am happy'</I>.<BR/><BR/>As for your third point, it represents an interesting philosophical puzzle, but not provide information that can be used to defend happiness theory over desire-fulfillment theory. It does not change the fact that, if given a choice between a happy fiction and unhappy truth, many people choose the unhappy truth. This is a fact that happiness theory cannot explain, but desire fulfillment theory can.<BR/><BR/>Even if I am a brain in a vat, I am a desire-fulfilling brain in a vat, not a happiness-seeking brain in a vat.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49071433837600141982008-01-05T22:01:00.000-07:002008-01-05T22:01:00.000-07:00(Just playing devil's advocate here.) One problem ...(Just playing devil's advocate here.) <BR/><BR/>One problem with the "experience machine" argument against hedonistic utilitarianism is that people seek happiness for others as well as for themselves; putting oneself in an experience machine makes it impossible for one to increase the happiness of others, so it could be both rational and moral to decline the experience machine.<BR/><BR/>Another problem is that real-world approximations of the "experience machine" exist and are popular. People read fiction, watch television, and play video games - all artificial experiences intended to induce happiness. Also, pleasure-inducing drugs, such as cocaine, alcohol, and opiate derivatives, have demonstrated popularity.<BR/><BR/>Finally, is it possible to make a variant of an experience machine in which the experiences created are "real" in all ways that matter? See also: http://consc.net/papers/matrix.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39554293253745309302008-01-05T15:13:00.000-07:002008-01-05T15:13:00.000-07:00Alonzo,You say you have solid evidence against the...Alonzo,<BR/>You say you have solid evidence against the proposal that morality is about questions of happiness and suffering. In reality this is not at all the case.<BR/>You have exactly the same evidence for how people would respond to a perfect pleasure machine that you have for God – absolutely none. There never has been such a thing and in all likelihood never will be.<BR/>Evidence based on things that don’t exist falls into the same category as future desires: no impact on behavior now.<BR/>You assert some people value truth over happiness. It is an entirely false dichotomy. All humans live in a real world where they constantly experience an association between deception and unhappiness. They almost certainly value truth BECAUSE it ultimately has the best chance to lead to happiness or to avoiding suffering.<BR/>Your experience machine is really a paradox proposition: Do you choose an option of happiness that involves rejecting everything that has brought you happiness in life and depend on deception that has almost always led you to unhappiness? You say a no answer proves values beyond happiness. I say it shows nothing more than common sense. People rarely chose that which they have never known and which contradicts their entire body of experience. <BR/>One can always define happiness in some narrow “are you grinning right now?” fashion that fails to explain long-term behavior. I’m sure when Harris uses the term happiness he includes those feelings of worth and satisfaction that one may get from finding truth, or helping others, or simply feeling one is living a good life.<BR/>You posit things like valuing truth, giving to your children, and sacrificing for others as contradicting happiness theory, as though these play no part in happiness. You have provided no real evidence that these don’t ultimately lead to more happiness than the alternatives, or conversely that not choosing them would not lead to more unhappiness. Feeling that one is doing the “right thing” can easily lead to more long term happiness than a short term pleasurable experience that leaves a nagging sense of failure.<BR/>You say that you do not have the desire “That I am happy” but have other desires. What you don’t have is a shred of evidence that you did not acquire these desires because fulfilling them makes you happy at some level, or that not fulfilling them will not lead to some level of unhappiness or dissatisfaction with yourself.<BR/>You may be right that there are elements of the human motivational system that cannot be explained through a broadly defined happiness-satisfaction-inner peace approach, but you certainly have not presented a compelling case that this is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com