Originally posted by nomindWell, I would think that morals and happiness uare inextricably tied together. I never said that the computer would make everyone happy, I said it would implement the best system to allow everyone the highest equal happiness. Thus, if it made someone really happy to do X, but another not so happy, then the computer would decide against it. What is good, is what achieves global satisfaction.
this computer idea only really works for a utilitarian model of ethics. if 'goodness' is not something that can be measured empirically then the computer does us no good. it is fine to stipulate that 'good' and 'happy' are the same thing, but are they? "X might make me happy, but is X good?" this is moore's open ended question argument aimed at showing th ...[text shortened]... ss is an unatural property. if this is so, then how is a computer to interact with it?
Ergo, goodness can be measured empirically.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Ka utilitarian model can come in many different varieties. mill's, probably the most famous, is concerned with producing the most overall happiness for everyone. this does not mean that everyone has to be happy though. if this is why utilitarianism is vulnerable to troubling counter-examples, such as organ harvesting. why not take homeless people's organs and use them to save many lives? the problem is that you can stipulate that producing happiness is the only moral good, and many have, but then the best life would be one where you were plugged in to a pleasure machine. there are many that would argue that moral goodness has to do something other than produce happiness. a utilitarian system is purely relative - anything can be 'good' if it produces happiness. some, like kant, would argue that moral goodness comes from doing one's duty to always treat all of humanity as an end in itself, and not merely as a means. this is entirely seperate from happiness. also, this 'goodness' does not lend itself very well to empirical observation. neither does utilitarianism, really. measuring 'utiles' of happiness? the question of whether or not moral goodness can be measured empirically or not is an old and far from settled debate. if it is not a real property that exists in the fabric of this universe than how is it to be measured?
Well, I would think that morals and happiness uare inextricably tied together. I never said that the computer would make everyone happy, I said it would implement the best system to allow everyone the highest equal happiness. Thus, if it made someone really happy to do X, but another not so happy, then the computer would decide against it. What is good, is what achieves global satisfaction.
Ergo, goodness can be measured empirically.
Originally posted by nomindI am quite sure that if someone had actually created a good enough pleasure machine then most of us would be plugged in. My family thinks I already am when they see me on the computer.
[b.....the problem is that you can stipulate that producing happiness is the only moral good, and many have, but then the best life would be one where you were plugged in to a pleasure machine. [/b]
In fact the global patern of drug use dispite the bad side effects (and here I include cigarretes, coffee and tea as well as 'hard' drugs) shows that most people would plug in at least occasionaly. In fact the main reason most people see the bad side effects of excess drug use and therefore realise that it is not all happiness.
Oh and I just remembered that well known pleasure machine called sex. I dont think anyone dreams of a utopia without that.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi agree that for the most part, at least in western society, we use some form of utilitarianism in deciding the moral 'good'. i do believe that most (western) people think that happiness is inextricably tied in with moral goodness, but this does not necessarily make it so. i don't want to get too far off track here, but my point was merely that if moral goodness is not a real feature of nature, then it cannot be measured. happiness can be measured, in theory, so if one asserts that happiness is morally 'good' then 'goodness' is empirically measurable. however, one may stipulate that they are using the term 'happiness' and 'goodness' interchangeably, but this is not necessarily how the rest of us use those words, or how those words correspond with the entities that they are supposed to represent. in any case, i'm not so sure that i would willingly plug myself into a pleasure machine at the expense of living out my "real" life. maybe that's only because i don't think that being plugged into a pleasure machine would really make me happy if i had the knowledge that i was plugged in, or maybe that's because i think that there is a higher order of satisfaction that comes with life when life is a struggle. in other words, maybe the ultimate aim of life is not to be happy but to be virtuous. and perhaps with this virtuous existance comes a form of satisfaction that makes mere happiness seem paltry by example. i'm certainly not the first one to put forth that argument anyway. i wouldn't know anyway because as a born and bred modern american, i am definitely a slave to pleasure and convenience. the struggle in my life is to break away from that as much as possible.
I am quite sure that if someone had actually created a good enough pleasure machine then most of us would be plugged in. My family thinks I already am when they see me on the computer.
In fact the global patern of drug use dispite the bad side effects (and here I include cigarretes, coffee and tea as well as 'hard' drugs) shows that most people would plu ...[text shortened]... t well known pleasure machine called sex. I dont think anyone dreams of a utopia without that.
1 edit
Originally posted by nomindAs far as I can remember you can't run for president if you are not american born, correct me if I am wrong. This is what wikipedia says.
right, i wouldn't want to live in it - and maybe that is just because i am too conditioned to hold freedom as the highest of values. however, i think that the reason that i wouldn't want to live in such a city is because i don't trust anyone with that much power over me. arguably, the state demands control so that it can make you better, but who decides wha america fades around him that the whole born-in-the-u.s. requirement will be disposed of.
Section One of Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the requirements one must meet in order to become President. The president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
The natural-born citizenship requirement has been the subject of controversy recently. Some commentators argue that the clause should be repealed because it excludes qualified people based on so-called "technicalities", and fails to appreciate the contributions made by immigrants to American society. Supporters counter that the requirement protects the United States from foreign interference — another country could send an emigrant to the United States and through subterfuge get them elected. Many prominent public officials are barred from the presidency because they are not natural-born citizens (for example, Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright), as well as other well-known persons born in other countries who have done great service for the United States (Bob Hope). Constitutional amendments are occasionally proposed to remove or modify this requirement, but none has been successful.
Originally posted by Will Everittno, you're not wrong. that's why i said the clause will be disposed of. i'm sure that the people who will be pushing for it will use many of the arguments you listed as reasons for the controversy.
As far as I can remember you can't run for president if you are not american born, correct me if I am wrong. This is what wikipedia says.
Section One of Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the requirements one must meet in order to become President. The president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the Uni ...[text shortened]... are occasionally proposed to remove or modify this requirement, but none has been successful.
Originally posted by nomindPut it this way. If everyone was disgusted by the harvesting of organs, it could hardly be considered global satisfaction.
a utilitarian model can come in many different varieties. mill's, probably the most famous, is concerned with producing the most overall happiness for everyone. this does not mean that everyone has to be happy though. if this is why utilitarianism is vulnerable to troubling counter-examples, such as organ harvesting. why not take homeless people's organs ...[text shortened]... real property that exists in the fabric of this universe than how is it to be measured?
I 'm not sure why goodness must be a "real property that exists in the fabric of the universe". My morality draws from a mostly economical basis and guess what economics exists and it can be measured.
Originally posted by Conrau Ki don't mean to debate with you on your own personal system of ethics. if the one that you tend to use is somewhat utilitarian or inluenced by adam smith, that's great - i haven't come across a system of ethics yet that i didn't find convincing on some level. in this case you are able to measure what is morally 'good' by how much happiness it creates. however, while i will agree with you that a particular act may promote more happiness, i will not agree that this is the same thing as that act being morally good. in other words, i would not agree that the fact that an act maximizes happiness means that this act is morally good. maybe this is not even your point. my point is that if one says that they can measure moral goodness, then that goodness must be a real property and not just a human invention. i rather believe that moral goodness is a human invention and as such is unable to be measured. this does not mean that overall happiness cannot be measured, because overall happiness and moral goodness are not the same thing.
Put it this way. If everyone was disgusted by the harvesting of organs, it could hardly be considered global satisfaction.
I 'm not sure why goodness must be a "real property that exists in the fabric of the universe". My morality draws from a mostly economical basis and guess what economics exists and it can be measured.
Originally posted by nomindIt sounds like the happiness machine is not working properly. The other possiblility is that life itself is the perfect happiness machine for you and you are already plugged in. Makes you wonder what could therefore be in heaven that is better?
i'm not so sure that i would willingly plug myself into a pleasure machine at the expense of living out my "real" life. maybe that's only because i don't think that being plugged into a pleasure machine would really make me happy if i had the knowledge that i was plugged in, or maybe that's because i think that there is a higher order of satisfaction that comes with life when life is a struggle.
But if the struggle in life brings so much happiness why do we all try to get away from it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadfor the same reason that we consume too much refined sugar - because our bodies are genetically hard-wired to keep us alive and reproducing but our cultural evolution has moved far too quickly for our physical evolution to catch up. in other words, we are technologicaly able to do things that may not be in our best interests but are pleasurable nonetheless. we can minimize discomfort and inconvenience, but it is only through difficulty that we grow as humans.
But if the struggle in life brings so much happiness why do we all try to get away from it?