TheAxiomOfTruth
TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3isfcl wrote
Reply to comment by fingin 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
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.
TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3hxzz3 wrote
Reply to 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
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.
TheAxiomOfTruth t1_j3jdzsk wrote
Reply to comment by fingin 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
Yes, well pointed out. I am just suggesting utilitarianism!