Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fingin t1_j3immki wrote

Reply to comment by TheAxiomOfTruth in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

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"!

29

TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3isfcl wrote

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.

18

fingin t1_j3itqrr wrote

Yeah I think it's better to focus on minimizing unwanted outcomes, is in line with some of the more compelling versions of Utilitarianism

10