Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_106k3wb in philosophy
I feel like it's the same issue, just using different words. For example, the concept of suffering extends well beyond things like physical and economic needs. It's like happiness in how difficult it is to actually assess it as its own quality. But I do see the value in minimizing these associated things rather than trying to maximize things like "life satisfaction rates"!
Good point. You can have food, money and good health and still be unhappy! However I stand by my point that on average measuring unhappiness is much easier. And, in general what makes us unhappy is much more universal. For example, going to a Taylor swift concert might make some people (including me) pretty happy, but others would be indifferent. But being starving universally makes people unhappy.
Yeah I think it's better to focus on minimizing unwanted outcomes, is in line with some of the more compelling versions of Utilitarianism
Yes, well pointed out. I am just suggesting utilitarianism!
Kind of!
[deleted]
I think what you are expressing is minimizing suffering as opposed to unhappiness.
Unhappiness like happiness can be very subjective, as the other commenter rightly suggested.
The most elemental types of suffering you listed are much more universal. If we were able to free people from physical and temporal suffering, hopefully more people would be well and functional, and have a shot at something like actual happiness or fulfillment.
I wonder if societies can be relied upon to pursue intellectual development if they aren't fighting against need and suffering, or if more people would accept some degree of comfort or contentment and remain apathetic?
Unhappiness, or at least dissatisfaction, can be very important for growth and development. Maximizing happiness would be going to the gym and living a long healthy life, minimizing unhappiness would be avoiding the discomfort of the gym and enjoying daily gluttony.
[deleted]
So tackle things in which unhappiness exists. To reach the more abstract happiness.
I like that.
I am not sure how well this approach works. I currently live in India and I notice that a lot of emotionally suffering and depressed folks are those that have a comfortable, financially well off setup (perhaps too well off). On the other hand, I also get to interact with labourers and poor people. Somehow most of those folks seem quite content and peaceful with their life (as long as they are able manage day to day survival). So I don't think physical or material suffering equate mental suffering although they may be a driver. Perhaps the poor don't live as complicated a life as the rich folks and perhaps they don't have the luxury or patience to go through existential crisis like the rich folks.
I think we should focus on tech, as in transhumanism or transanimalism, because no matter how much we try to philosophize about it, the body and mind will react to pain and suffering in a negative way, unless we tech up and make our body and mind resilient, just like a robot cant feel pain and can easily repair or replace damaged parts.
We could at least get rid of the physical aspect of pain and suffering, our minds could greatly improve with AI integration too (brain chips), making it far better at processing stimuli than what nature could do.
Become as strong and as durable as machines but as smart and wise as humans.
Johnny Depp Transcendence.
Unhappiness is a product in our modern consumer culture. How can they sell you something to make you happy unless you are unhappy? They manufacture unhappiness through advertisement and other manipulative practices like limited time offers to create FOMO.
Happy people buy plenty of things
[deleted]
Abstract:
Many social scientists have become interested in the possibility of studying happiness (i.e. subjective well-being) scientifically. This has motivated many individual studies but also the large and much-reported World Happiness Report. This movement has been criticised by two strands of philosophers. On the one hand, there are those who criticise underlying welfarism. On the other hand, others have criticised the field for studying a topic (“happiness”) that is impossible to study rigorously.
Anna Alexandrova argues that the latter concern is justifiable, but only partially so. There is no clear reason why the kinds of measures used by “happiness scientists” could not be used rigorously (e.g. asking people about their life satisfaction). However, happiness and well-being have many meanings in different contexts, and it is problematic to collapse all these pluralistic measures under one overarching “happiness” variable. Therefore, one can support the general project of the “science of happiness” but remain sceptical about single-variable such as “world’s happiest country” or the WELBY metrics adopted by the UK government.
However, most “science of happiness” reports make the questionable assumption that all of these metrics can be used to gauge a single underlying “happiness” (e.g. “what is the happiest country in the world?”) Instead, we need a pluralistic approach, where scientists tackle more specific questions around topics that fall under the concepts of happiness and wellbeing.
I dont see how breaking down happiness into different kinds and metrics will allow them to make it any less subjective. We can not truly measure anothers experience of happiness any better than we can measure their experience of the taste of mustard. We can learn how to trigger the experiences, but we cant actually study the qualia from the outside.
And yet I guarantee you that chefs and condiment manufacturers alike do have ideas on how to make a good mustard.
We have one standard for measuring happiness- asking people if they're happy. It's essentially the same one we have for assessing pain. At that point, it's just a matter of figuring out what makes people, when able to freely say, say they're happy more than not.
Really well put with the mustard analogy.
You don't need access to another person's qualia, to make reasonable judgements on happiness. Can you make perfect assessments of their happiness... No. But i don't think people can make perfect assessments of their own happiness even with their qualia.
Nobody is seeking perfect understanding of each persons subjective happiness, the same way a chef ain't seeking perfect understanding of every single persons subjective taste pallette. That doesnt mean you cant find patterns and techniques that tend to better peoples experience, and understanding the type of person it works for...And thats extremely valuable.
We can study the Qualia of others. Even if we cant experience others qualia exactly as they do, that does not mean we cannot make inductive assessments about it. This is the same mistake people make with the problem of induction... we cannot have perfect true knowledge using induction... but that does not mean we cannot possess knowledge and study things... it just means we can't have perfect knowledge, capital T truth. Yes, we cannot have perfect knowledge of someone's qualia of happiness... but thats meaningless since nothing in science claims or seeks that.
> But i don't think people can make perfect assessments of their own happiness even with their qualia.
That is, though, about as good as it's going to get.
Presumably few would say they're unhappy when they're somehow secretly happy. Some more might say they're happy out of a belief they're supposed to be happy. Despite that, the person describing their own qualia has to be better than anyone else at knowing whether that assessment is right or not.
I agree with you 100% im basically adding on to refuting klosnj11
Thats about as good as it gets. Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes, but the point is that you dont need access directly to someone subjective qualia to make good, helpful, meaningful scientific assessments of happiness. Meaningful inductive assessments can be made through self reporting and other assessment methods.
Klosnj11 is conflating science seeking general and useful understandings of happiness to a completely objective understanding of happiness. Just like the mustard manufacturer can study taste to improve it generally, but doesn't claim to objectively perfect taste.
> Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes,
Possibly not, considering what we know of how neurotransmitter-increasing medications work. They don't cause an end to depression immediately after raising neurotransmitter levels. And, ironically, suicide risk goes up shortly after starting the meds.
No doubt. It was kinda besides the point as i said. I was just playing devils advocate as I'm sure there's at least some situation or person where measuring neurotransmitters is more helpful than self reporting. Also it can be helpful in addition to self reporting.
But i would generally agree self reporting is much more valuable.
I'd be curious how happiness researchers would rate my happiness since I'm in daily, almost constant low level pain that zaps my energy and my ability to experience the world of active people. I also feel shitty, physically often due to POTS. I've been sick for at least 35 years.
But I've got a bunch of challenging artistic pursuits I can do from bed or my house. I'm in a happy marriage, I have several close friends and my mood is good. I'm also free of most of my family who have been unsupported and even hostile since I fell ill.
The main factor that may have nothing to do with the rest is a good mood. I'm very lucky. I'm not sure I have anything to do with that except for eliminating as much stress from my life as I can.
I would think the person describing their own qualia would only be better than anyone else in describing it, but not making accurate assessments of their happiness (without taking time for introspection, at least).
But what does it really mean when they say they are happy? Is it the same as other people? The experience may be completely different, and we wouldnt know.
At least with pain, there are some near-instant biological responses we can measure for scale.
Chefs and coniment manufactures dont know how to make a "good mustard" as such a thing does not exist. They know how to make a mustard that appeals to the most customers. They know how to make a mustard that they feel compliments particular other flavors. They now how to make mustard that wont give you a stomach illness. But if there was a "good mustard" there wouldnt be so many varieties. People like different things. And how mustard tastes feom person to person is, in many ways, immeasurable and subjective.
[removed]
All of these measures need to be tied to something a little more concrete. I can imagine something along the lines of operationalising Max Neef's conception of human needs and satisfiers/unsatisfiers.
"Solve for Happy... " by Mo Gawdat.
Works for me.
Sounds like she's exchanging one subjective term for another.
She's exchanging a more subjective term with less subjective terms. Split a big question in to smaller, easier to study and quantify questions, study those, and gain insights about the big questions, perhaps allowing you to study that directly sometime in the future.
If a wall is too tall, carve steps in it.
Isn't something being more/less subjective... going to, itself, be inherently subjective?
We may argue what size the steps should be, but better too big or small than none at all...
this analogy has reached its end.
Philosopher discovers psychological constructs are constructs...
Thank you.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
A devastating factor of our mind is to harbor fear of failure. Fear of failure is the hardest obstacle keeping you from success and happiness. If you embraced failure then you are unstoppable in achieving your life’s endeavors.
Artificial _Telepathy Sub Artificial _Telepathy Sub
Often times acting righteously will also bring happiness as a side product
I feel like dwarf fortress taught me a lot about this with the simple system of "unmet need: be extravagant, unmet need: spend time with family". It's a great approach that gets to the meat of it instantly, and is really healthy introspection that can actually be utilized.
Anna Alxandrova should read 'Solve For Happy' by Mo Gawdat.
It's the best book I've read that tries to science it out effectively.
[removed]
They are going to find out that people don't actually want to be happy that's the problem.
Indices / Indexes of happiness, well being, etc, correlate to GDP.
I do not like reducing human experience and well being down to variables - they’re too varied, nuanced, layered, and ever evolving to quantify
But my Utils
The way out is in
The moment we find the right mix of drugs and neurotech to reliably engineer happiness we'll realize what a shallow goal it was all along.
That’s called positive psychology and has been studied for over 30 years.
[removed]
Idk about happiness but building resilience in the face of hardship and suffering might be a worthy goal. To that end I think a daily mindfulness and gratitude practice goes a long way.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It is foolish in the first place to regard happiness as chiefly important or our primary goal/purpose. Placing your happiness as your primary goal will almost insure your unhappiness
[removed]
No shit, Sherlock.
TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3hxzz3 wrote
Hot take: Our focus on maximising happiness (or some analog to it) is the wrong approach. Minimizing unhappiness is more pragmatic. The reason being unhappiness is quite easily measured or at least the conditions which might cause it are. For example hunger, disease and poverty. And is more easily directly treated: food, medicine and money.