Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_ynt30e in philosophy
I think what he means is science can help us understand what is good for us, what will make us happy, what we SHOULD want, and in that regard help us define values.
It makes sense and definitely true but that is not exactly a true moral system,
[deleted]
I know right! If it was possible I would get wired up in a heartbeat
[removed]
Because that isn't how we want to feel? And happiness is how we want to feel.
[deleted]
Yes, but the status of being artificially created is different than naturally created. Thus there is a difference.
[deleted]
I disagree. Happiness is how you want to feel. Is there a difference to a stomach? Why are we speaking of stomachs.
I thought we were talking about mental states. Stomachs don't have those.
[deleted]
Happiness is the way we want to feel. There is a difference between a feeling based on some fundamental lie like being a wirehead vs. something authentic. That is why you are using it as a counter-example to utilitarianism.
There is a difference between belief and knowledge for example. One of which is the truth of the belief.
Happiness cannot just be some mere neuro-transmitter state, or it would fail to account for possible beings that can be happy yet do not use neurotransmitters.
Happiness is the way a being wants to feel. They either are the way they want to feel, the opposite of the way they want to feel, or some distance between these too. This isn't merely about generating hedons.
[deleted]
That is up to individuals desired feelings.
Do you want knowledge of comforting false beliefs? Do you want feelings derived from the wire head or not?
I don't disagree that all MY feelings are generated by my brain making electro chemical impulses. I highly doubt that ALL feelings are electronic chemical impulses in my brain.
I also believe that science can in fact determine those feelings most of the time but not all of the time. Does something being difficult to measure mean it is meaningless? I hope that portion of Logical Positivism can be abandoned here. Science generally relies on truth, induction working, and the hope our senses are aligned so that we can make sense of the world. Those are all three very fundamental intangibles.
How can a feeling be authentic or not? That is up to the feeling being. Taking an animal and vivisecting so that I may wire up its feelings may be happiness for that animal. It may have no opinion on the authenticity of its feelings. Yet humans clearly care about authenticity.
I couldn't tell you exactly what authenticity is in a global sense. I could give you a recipe. A feeling is authentic if the feeling being is correct in how it was generated and feels that the way it was being generated is authentic. This is very difficult to get at, but not impossible. It is indeed subjective.
[deleted]
I've been using want since my first post to define happiness. Happiness is the way we want to feel.
I do believe I am sidestepping the is ought gap.
I didn't say that satisfying wants is right. I said happiness is the way we want to feel.
[deleted]
I suppose I am a prisoner of common language and shouldn't call how we want to feel happiness? Surely being trapped by this word is the nail in the coffin for my position.
I do believe there are times we would rather feel misery and sorrow than joy. After a great tragedy, I would rather feel misery or sorrow. I will want to mourn my parents when they pass, and I will want to feel all sorts of ways that are not just happy. Moreover it is GOOD that I feel those ways. Or would you tell someone grieving it is bad that they feel grief?
As for your last point, I don't understand why you are moralizing against the BDSM community.
Edit: Language is important and shared. Dictionary definitions are not as clear in their reporting of usage as you insinuate: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/happy
[deleted]
Of course actual harm to the outgroup is wrong and because there are sadists doesn't mean the happiness of a sadist is somehow outweighed by the damage they do. I felt like this was an obvious response any consequential would give.
Of course bdsm is consensual. This is why I am not sure why sadistic glee is some sort of counter example.
Sorry you took it as aggressive, but I was clear in my definition of what I meant by happiness from the start as how you want to feel. Frankly sentences like "I would be happier in misery than in pleaure" seem meaningful and productive sentences. Dictionary mongering is just silly.
Goodbye.
>(science_fiction)
Your link answered your question. We don't become wireheads because it's impossible.
Many people use mind altering substances to stimulate their brains. It doesn't (usually) end well.
[deleted]
That is a better concept. But it isn't what he means. Or what he said or wrote.
Yeah I just wrote what came to my mind reading the title I am definitely off topic. My bad
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments