An observation about truth: because our human urges, we cannot reliably tell the truth (.under certain conditions). Take President Eisenhower (when asked by Kruschev if we (the USA) were conducting spy plane flights over the USSR. Eisenhower could not have answered truthfully, because Kruschev was putting him on the spot. To tell the truth (in this situation) would mean admitting to a previous lie. Should Eisenhower have told the truth? Yes, he should have…but only after meeting with Kruschev in private.
Does this mean that humans are inveterate liars? No-but if backed against a wall, we are.
That is why people generally ignore political speeches-they know that most of the stuff is lies, so why take it seriously?
Better?? thanks for the tip.
Well, I couldn’t answer that in the affirmative since we have no consensus on what happiness is.
That strikes me as asking “If it were proven to you that God didn’t exist would you be an atheist?” The knee jerk answer seems to be yes but it seems totally unprovable one way or the other. Add to that the lack of a clear definition of happiness.
[QUOTE]
[sub]Oh, and one other little thing: could you please consider your coding? You’ve made exactly the same coding error in every single post so far, and while I hesitate to bring it up, it is annoying. Start the first quote with
[quote=username]
, not with
[quote=username]
okay,…if I’m going to be annoying I’d like it to be a conscious choice
Let me ask two questions
- Do you agree that in our closest and and most intimate relationships {significant other, spouse, parent, child} we hold that honesty is a crucial ingrediant for happiness?
2, If you answered the first with yes then do you agree it is logical evidence {not proof} that honesty might also enhance all our relationships and thus contribute to happiness?
BTW I’ve enjoyed our exchange in the other thread and here. Other than entertainment I enjoy it when I learn something in the SDMBs. So thanks.
I was intrigued by the story of FDR in the years before WWII. He believed we should challenge Hitler while we still had allies in Europe to help us. In the US the general feeling was that it wasn’t our problem. He could not express his true feelings and be reelected. He looked for a confrontation with German U boats to galvanize the public. Historically it appears he was justified.
I agree that almost no one always tell the truth. Maybe 1 in several million. My objection is that we have accepted dishonesty as a viable tool in our culture. We assume that our political leaders lie, and salesman lie, and lawyers lie and CEOs etc. etc. I had a customer lie to me today trying to save a friggin 20 bucks.
I think our society is better served by dishonesty being very unacceptable and the exception to the rule. My contention is that if we try and try hard to be 100% honest then it is better for us and others. We learn how to be honest and temper it with wisdon and consideration. In the example you gave Eisenhower lied to cover for a previous lie. If he hadn’t lie to begin with then it would have been a non issue. I also propose that in EVERY case where a lie seemed the best choice there was an honest alternative.
And I kinda think you’re being deliberately difficult over this case study:) (which is why again, I don’t really see what it teaches us that isn’t amplified a thousand times over by the Nazi case).
Yes, those are two different statements. But she didn’t ask you if liked the reunions for their own sake. If she did, presumably you wouldn’t directly answer. There are a thousand and one ways out of this situation, none of which involve lying - the same as there are with all the other social situations where so called white lies are supposedly justified.
You’re * still * being circular. You’re defining want in such a way that its only about happiness, which I’ve argued it isn’t.
If you want to relax the above position to say that “imagine I was in an thinking endless nirvana”, then yeah, I think I wouldn’t be content.
Hmm, that’s a weird assertion. I don’t think that’s really true on either a metaphysical or just an everyday experience sense. There’s a reason why the phrase “ignorance is bliss” is somewhat ironic, or at least not taken as a perfect maxim. For example. I think a significant proportion of people would want to know if their spouse had cheated on them (which I’m gonna presume, isn’t going to make them happy…)
It absolutely matters for the purposes of this discussion, cause if we’re being this broad we can say that happiness is impossible without truth, meaning that to say to lie makes you happy would be a contradiction in terms.
(I don’t actually support this argument BTW, mostly because I think destroys the term ‘happiness’ of any its usefulness as a distinctive concept.)
I think you must have misunderstood me.
If happiness is the concept you build your ethics on, then obviously its even more vital to actually know what it is then might be otherwise.
As it is, from the rest of your post, you seem to be saying that happiness comes ultimately from a direct physical experience of pleasure.
Well, firstly, I think utilitarianism is a lot more complicated and has more problems than you’re really presenting it with, but its not really central to our debate, so I’m gonna put that to one side.
Okay, you say happiness has value, because you experience that pleasure is ‘good’. Do you not accept that exactly the same reasoning can be used to show that other concepts and experiences could be thought of as good? That just as to you it seemed instinctive to say that pleasure is good, cause that’s the way the world works; that I can just as easily to me that a sense of freedom is good. That a sense of nobility and purpose. And that the value I find in these things can’t always be reduced to a direct sense of pleasure.
One example would be the soldier jumping on a grenade to save the rest of his allies. I’d argue that that’s a moral action, which doesn’t come from pleasure. (If you want to argue that it can be brought into a utilitarian ethic by the happiness it produces in the others whose lives are saved, you’re going to have to argue why the martyr soldier should * care * about them. It’s going to have to be for some other reason than pleasure, cause he’s about to die…
In others, why do people not act completely selfishly?
The lack of a definition is a problem, but the unprovability is not; I’m asking you to answer a hypothetical. Your answer seems to indicate that you do, in fact, agree that happiness is more important than truth, and truth is only good if it promotes happiness.
No. It comes down to individual circumstances.
Backatcha.
You said that you do not wish only for happiness, because right now the thought of being in a thoughtless nirvana doesn’t appeal to you. I’m not sure how you keep missing my point, which is that while you may say that now (and therefore might not be happy if told you were going to spend the rest of your life in a thoughtless nirvana), you would be happy once you were in a thoughtless nirvana. Hence, your statement that the thought of being in a thoughtless nirvana doesn’t appeal to you, doesn’t refute my point.
That’s not the original statement, which called for an “unthinking eternal nirvana of simple perfect ecstasy”, in which you would be content.
They’ll say that, but of course the ideal option is that they never ever find out. They only say that because the question presupposes that the spouse is cheating; if they don’t know that the situation changes.
Yep, whatever form that pleasure takes.
Feel free to start another thread for that purpose.
Yes and no. Yes, as in any other concept or experience can be “shown” to be good to the same extent that I have “shown” that pleasure is good. No, as in you probably cannot convince me that anything else has value.
Whence the value, then?
The soldier jumping on the grenade is, under most circumstances, morally right, because that action maximizes pleasure. I don’t understand why the soldier would need another reason.
Do you agree that physical and mental pleasure is good, while physical and mental pain is bad?
** Yes.**
But I ** also ** think other things can be good. Thus :
Thus, appeal and want to me are not just about happiness. You treat ‘want’ as if it can only be about happiness - which is the very point I’m arguing, and thus why I say you’re being circular.
Quick note : that’s one reason, it’s the not the only one.
Yes, but don’t you see that to want is to think? I can’t be said to want anything if I don’t think, so the question as a whole is absurd.
And you might argue that want can be more instinctual than other thinking, that it can just be a base sensation like pain or hunger - but higher thinking than that is neccesary to be * me *. I think therefore I am, to misuse a phrase horribly 
.
I disagree. And I think a large amount of other people would do too. I would want to know if my partner was cheating on me, no matter the consequences.
Just out of interest, firstly, why is that? Secondly, do you think it is appropriate and valid for other people to consider that other things have value?
Whence the value from pleasure?
(that’s a rhetorical question by the way, you don’t have to answer 
)
I’ve said many times the value from truth - it gives life meaning. It gives life purpose. Integrity. Nobility.
Those things seem just as instinctively important to me as pleasure.
Okay, let’s do the argument again, a bit slower.
Imagine I am the soldier, faced with this split second choice. This is how my moral reasoning goes, if morality depends only on happiness:
a) If I sacrifice myself, I will lose a lot of potential future happiness
b) If I sacrifice myself, the other soldiers will have a lot, lot more future happiness
c) If I sacrifce myself, the happiness I will personally experience before I die at saving my comrades lifes will not be as great as the potential future happiness I would have if I lived
From my subjective POV then, the action that maximises my own happiness is not to jump on the grenade. Maximising other people’s happiness gives me no pleasure - the only source for morality we’ve allowed. Thus maximising other people’s happiness can’t be the moral thing to do.
We must have a reason to * care * about other people. And that reason can’t depend on pleasure alone - as we do not get pleasure from helping others (or if we do, not enough to make up for killing ourselves).
That make more sense?
No it’s not quite like that. It’s more like the search for happiness will show you the truth {because happiness based on lies always fails} and discovering the truth will bring you to true happiness. One can’t be more important than the other. You might argue that happiness is the goal and therefore more important but if true happiness can’t exist without truth then they share equal value. It’s like saying cornbread is more important that corn meal.
What circumstances might those be? I realize that not everyone has a close relationship with their family. I meant whatever your close significant relationship is. There may be a few people who simply don’t want and avoid close relationships. For the larger part of humanity that does seek out a significant relationship with someone, isn’t honesty and trust and cruical part of it’s success and thus happiness?
Great. Then I assume I don’t have to attempt to prove that statement?
Why do you not want to be in an unthinking nirvana of perfect ecstacy?
I think you’re not telling the truth here. Think about it:
A. Your spouse doesn’t cheat on you.
B. Your spouse does cheat on you, but you don’t ever find out.
C. Your spouse does cheat on you, and you find out.
To you, options A and B are indistinguishable from each other. As I’m pretty sure you prefer option A to option C (tell me if I’m mistaken here), you must logically prefer option B to option C as well.
Well, there were two statements in there, and I don’t know which one you’re referring to, so I’ll answer each in turn.
If you’re referring to “Yes, as in any other concept or experience can be “shown” to be good to the same extent that I have “shown” that pleasure is good”: Because, essentially, pleasure is just electrical activity and nothing else. There is no objective difference between that electrical activity and any other.
If you’re referring to “No, as in you probably cannot convince me that anything else has value”: Because no-one has ever been able to. Whenever anyone ever has advanced anything else as a possible value-bearing entity, the argument has always come down to “it’s valuable because it makes us happy”, which means it’s happiness that has value after all.
Appropriate and valid, you say? People can go around considering what they want, since I cannot stop them and wouldn’t if I could (since such an action would, in all probability, decrease the net happiness in the world), but I don’t accept that other things have value.
Whence the value from meaning, purpose, integrity and nobility?
I don’t see what is so difficult about my position on this matter. The happiness of another being is just as important as one’s own happiness. Sacrificing yourself to maximize happiness is therefore morally right.
This is a strawman. I draw no distinction between the happiness of the agent and the happiness of others.
Uh, aren’t we having this discussion already later in the post?
Because, as I’ve said, I think other things than happiness are valuable. I want them, I don’t get them in the nirvana scenario, therefore I do not want it.
Options A and B are only indistinguishable if you hold that pleasure is the only thing valuable.
(and yes, I’ve thought over it - I still prefer C to B).
Well, I’m not arguing that, I’ll say first of all.
Yes, they may have no value to you, but do you accept that they have * value to them * and thus indirectly value to you?
To repeat myself endlessly, ** what is the meaning from pleasure? **
Look, you were the one who first brought up (and I would agree with you) that we cannot prove that something basic such as pleasure is good. We just accept that it is. And that is the exact same reasoning we must use in this case.
It is not a strawman. It is in fact absolutely crucial.
Why is “happiness of another being is just as important as one’s own happiness”?
I just presented an argument that there is no reason to think this in a morality that depends only on pleasure. You’re either going to have to show why I’m wrong, or accept that intuitively we have to accept other things too.
How do you, “you” being the person in the example, distinguish between A and B?
Why? It makes no sense to wish for avoidable pain.
Very interesting question. Thanks for posing it. I would have to say yes, if these things do have value to others apart from the promotion of happiness, then they indirectly do have value to me. I don’t believe that they do have value apart from the promotion to happiness, not even for others.
It feels good. You’ve already agreed with this.
The difference is that you agree that pleasure is good. I do not agree that integrity, nobility and so forth are good. If you wish to convince me that you are correct, you must somehow show that they are objectively good.
Because there is no difference between the happiness of another being and my own happiness. Why would I make that distinction?
Before I answer that, I’ll say that I distinguish between the two of them due to the truth value.
Now, as for the “you” in the example - I can’t, but I’m not sure that’s relevant. Let’s say you have a choice between an apple and an orange, to which you are ambivalent about. However, little known to me, an evil maniac is watching my actions and if I choose the apple, will nuke Ohio.
Obviously hypothetically standing back and looking at that situation, and seeing as I don’t really hate people from Ohio * that * much I’d rather I choose the orange, even though to me the actions are indistinguishable.
(oh, and for the purposes of the example, let’s say I live in a mountain hut in Japan and will never find out about Ohio’s annihilation or otherwise)
Same situation.
It’s about the greater good.
You have said indirectly yourself, that there is ** no ** objective good. That it is only that we experience it as good. Why then do you reject my experiences while accepting your own? Are your experiences somehow more valid, and mine not? I honestly don’t understand what the difference between the two are.
There’s a very real, objective difference. One I experience, the rest I don’t.
Why are we not just selfish egotistical beings, caring only for ourselves?
Unless you want your moral system to reduce itself to that, you need to come up with a reason for caring for other people, and one that a) only depends on pleasure to myself (to not be circular) and b) works in the grenade example.
Personally, I don’t think that’s possible.
No, it’s not the same situation at all. If your spouse cheats on you and you don’t find out, Ohio doesn’t get nuked. Bringing millions of deaths into the scenario changes it immensely. The only person “harmed”, if harmed you be, in the original scenario is you, and you don’t even know it.
How does it promote the greater good to find out about your spouse’s cheating?
The difference is that we both agree that happiness is good. I have already conceded that I cannot convince someone who doesn’t agree that happiness is good, but since everyone seems to agree with that, the problem doesn’t arise. You have that problem right now: I do not agree that truth and nobility and so forth are good.
And why does that matter? Why are you more important than other beings?
Precisely because we are capable of realizing that other beings also feel pleasure and pain, and we are capable of realizing that their pleasure and pain is not fundamentally different from our own.
This is simply not true. I have never said that “pleasure to myself” is the only thing to have value, I’ve said that “pleasure” (without qualifiers) is the only thing to have value. If pleasure has value no matter who is experiencing it, then throwing yourself on the grenade is the correct thing to do. There is no inconsistency here.
I want to take a shot at this one. I was thinking about that situation.
under option B what about her happiness? I think it’s unrealistic to assume that because I never find out she is just as happy as before she cheated. She may be unhappy because of guilt, or the danger of her lie being discovered. She may be unhappy because now she realizes you don’t really satisfy her.
Either of these options will effect your happiness. If she has guilt or worries about discovery then there will be subtle changes in her manner, which might cause you to suspect that something is wrong. You may not know what it is but the idea that your spouse is keeping a secret from you diminishes your happiness as well. The same is true if she realizes you don’t satisfy her. To propose that you never find out and things go on as before is totally unrealistic.
My choice would be C. The truth is the only real cure. Either the couple will forgive and survive or they will go their seperate ways and share happiness with someone else.
Even under the best scenario I think living with that kowledge of a lie diminishes her happiness.
This is a question I am grateful for. One thing I’ve gotten out of this discussion is that principles do not automatically have value. They are merely concepts and ideals that we use to reach for something of value.
Here’s where I think your philosophy runs into a problem. Can this statement be true under the strict interpertation “the only thing of worth is happiness.”
Can you sacrifice happiness for happiness? In reading about utilitarianism I see that Jeremy Bentham ran into this very problem and developed “the greatest happiness principle” The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
We can see the application of this when the man jumps on the grenade, but doesn’t that also mean that in a one on one situation, “my happiness or theirs”, I always choose mine? If there is no distinction between your happiness and anyone elses then how do we make a judgement call? How do we determine the greater happiness, sInce happiness itself fluctuates from person to person and time to time. It seems to me without a constant it can only lead to a cycle of chaos. It seems to need a constant or a foundation :smack: Wait!!! I thought of one!! I think the concept begins to make sense when John Stuart Mill declared that cultural or spiritual happiness has more value than mere physical pleasure.
Here it begins to point to the truth, and the thread that this discussion began in.
I agree that considering the spouse’s happiness as a factor complicates matters and possibly changes the outcome, but the point was that Lucius claimed that he preferred the truth to living a pleasant lie, for his own personal gain.
It’s a principle I agree with, provided that “people” is changed to “beings”.
These things are difficult, but they do not change the philosophy at all. If we were to find that employing strict utilitarianism in everyday life is so difficult that greater happiness is in fact attainable by following a system of rights and abstract values instead, then the latter system would be the one to follow, and would in itself be utilitarianist, as it promotes the greatest amount of happiness.
So, even if ascertaining the amount of happiness gained or lost in each situation is impossible, that doesn’t impact the philosophy.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
We are required to make this judgement call when trying to determine the greater good. The Secret Service will take a bullet for the President. If it’s me or some scientist about to cure aides whose lives are on the line then it would seem saving him is the greater good. How many lives would his be worth? Should we let a hundred people be killed to save him? 1000? 2000?
Yes but in making judgement calls we need some standard. If we give our kids nothing but what they want and fufill their every whim for the sake of pleasure then they suffer later on. Here again is another question your philosophy struggles with. Short term happiness or long term happiness. Since we can’t predict the future I guess short term is okay, but then again we have some awareness of long term negative results of certain actions and so we choose to deny ourselves immediate pleasure for what we percieve as the greater good.
There is contradiction. You say that being moral {principles} has no value and yet here you say this sacrifice is morally correct. Based on your philosophy how do we make that judgement call. Is it strictly numbers? One person vs more than one.
I was simply pointing out that just because that two things are indistinguishable to me, doesn’t mean one can’t be better than the other.
Okay, this is better - but I also say that you can be harmed without knowing about it (make up your own example with amnesia). And I say that you would be harmed, because I define truth as valuable.
Okay?
Because I define truth as valuable.
(Aside: I have a feeling that there probably are some religious sects who believe that happiness is not good in itself, only obeying God’s will is - but since I can’t cite it, I’ll let that go.)
Look, imagine we are talking about favourite colours. You like red. I do too, but I also, like green and yellow. You say you don’t like green and yellow, so they haven’t value for either me or you, but as I like red too, red is all that matters. You in fact go as far to say that I am mistaken to like green and yellow, that my views are unimportant, as only red has any value.
How am I supposed to argue with that? I repeat again - do you not at least accept that it has value to me, and thus indirect value to you?
You have not argued for that position so far. You have only argued that pleasure has value to the one who experiences it, because we feel it is good.
** So? ** Why the hell should I care?
My answer to that is because my pleasure is not the only thing valuable - respecting other people is too. But that avenue simply isn’t open to you.
Very difficult to say, but like I said, difficulty in ascertaining the amount of happiness gained or lost doesn’t impact the philosophy.
It’s not a question my philosophy struggles with; it’s very easily answered. The option that provides maximum happiness and minimum suffering is the best one. Short-term happiness or long-term happiness I don’t care about, but usually the answer is long-term happiness. Even if you were in complete ecstacy for five minutes and then suffered mildly the rest of your life, you’d probably regret it, so that’s not the option to take.
As for the children, it’s pretty clear that both they and the rest of the world benefits from them not being given a free rein and everything they would ever want.
Who said morals are the same as principles? I certainly didn’t.
To you, it means precisely that.
No, please make up your example.
But you have yet to show any benefit from truth in itself.
No. Red has value to me because it brings me pleasure. Green and yellow have value to you because they bring you pleasure (you “like” them), and therefore they have value to me.
No. Every time you try and explain why truth has value, you come back to pleasure.
I have argued for precisely that position all along. Pleasure has value because it feels good. This is what I’ve been saying. There is no “to the one who experiences it” in there.
Because you agree that pleasure is good, and that there is no difference between pleasure you experience and pleasure others experience. To then deny that the pleasure of others is good would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Respecting other people has value because it promotes happiness. I’m sorry if you feel insulted or not respected by me, but I have done nothing but explain my own moral stance and cannot help if it offends you.
I don’t think you can support the validity of this philosophy with this type of example by examining only one person’s happiness. It assumes too much.
I’m saying the truth would eventually lead to the gain of both parties, while a lie creates the illusion of pleasure that cannot sustain itself. Again the issue of short term or long term?
Interesting, why this change? If you believe in this principle then please explain how we make the judgement call on what is the greater good?
Thats a stretch and a contradiction. If Utilitarianism doesn’t work then whatever does work is Utilitarianism. It’s meaningless. It like Mormons saying even though we’ve discovered that the Book of Mormon is a sham since some of our other beliefs survive, we are still Mormons.
It doesn’t impact the fact that this philosophy exists. It certainly impacts any real application of this philosophy. I’m glad I was exposed to it beause I think it has some valid points but on a whole it has one failing that renders it relatively useless. There is no foundational axiom that is a constant.