Health is Key: Better than Happiness

[Bartholomew]

I think it is better to be healthy, in body, mind, and spirit, than to be happy. Degenerate happiness--like from drugs--is worthless. Happiness is only valuable for two things: it helps people be healthy (unhappy people suffer health problems), and it is a (sometimes unreliable) indicator of health. It has no intrinsic value.

 

[learningphysics]

I think it is better to be healthy, in body, mind, and spirit, than to be happy. Degenerate happiness--like from drugs--is worthless. Happiness is only valuable for two things: it helps people be healthy (unhappy people suffer health problems), and it is a (sometimes unreliable) indicator of health. It has no intrinsic value.

Why does health have intrinsic value?

I disagree with your post. I'd say it is the other way around. I believe happiness, and lack of suffering are the only things of intrinsic value. Health only has value in that it lessens suffering and increases happiness.

 

[Bartholomew]

Being drugged out for the rest of your life is repulsive and undesirable even if it means you will be happy.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'd be inclined to believe that abstaining from drugs would wrought more happiness than consumption, since the mind can rationalize to make abstinence create happiness through knowledge and self-made limitations; however, from an overall perspective, I would value happiness over health. Health is upkept in order to live a longer and healthier life, but health is sustained to achieve more happiness; therefore, I believe happiness is most important, and health is a way of achieving it.

 

[Bartholomew]

A hypothetical being which did not use the human happiness/pain circuits but instead used something else would find no meaning whatsoever in happiness, but if he were to be successful at _anything_ he would have to have health. Health is much more universal than happiness.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Emotion is what makes life worthwhile or worthless;furthermore, in your instance, I would say a robot would fit your description. Logically a machine's condition is most essential to it being successful.

 

[Bartholomew]

I didn't say _no_ emotion, simply not the human feelings of happiness or pain.

Any being's condition is "most essential to it being successful." Health is basically a degree of effectiveness--how well does something perform the functions it should perform? Unhealthiness is dysfunctionality.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Why does health have intrinsic value?

I disagree with your post. I'd say it is the other way around. I believe happiness, and lack of suffering are the only things of intrinsic value. Health only has value in that it lessens suffering and increases happiness.

True, but if we take drugs, we are taking the worse statistical end of the straw. We are more likely to get more unhappiness from drugs (and Evilness as well) than we would if we just stayed off drugs and found some other fun things to do.
When we talk about happiness we really are talking about a thing that is GENERALLY Good. So, we have to find what is Good in the long run, go with it and experience the happiness that those Good things bring us.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I didn't say _no_ emotion, simply not the human feelings of happiness or pain.

Any being's condition is "most essential to it being successful." Health is basically a degree of effectiveness--how well does something perform the functions it should perform? Unhealthiness is dysfunctionality.

health Audio pronunciation of "health" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hlth)
n.

1. The overall condition of an organism at a given time.
2. Soundness, especially of body or mind; freedom from disease or abnormality.
3. A condition of optimal well-being: concerned about the ecological health of the area.
4. A wish for someone's good health, often expressed as a toast.

Dictionary.com's definition. I would say Bartholomew is pretty precise on his definition, and it is in concord with the definition provided by the dicitonary.

To have better health is to live longer or perform better in a mental sense, and performing well mentally and living longer are related to survival which relates this idea to natural performance, I agree with Bartholomew.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[Bartholomew]

The question is, if you had the opportunity to be drugged into bliss for eighty years in some special experiment, all of your needs taken care of, should you take it? I say, no, because it would be unhealthy; even if it does not damage your capabilities it is dysfunctional, and prevents you from using those capabilities.

 

[learningphysics]

The question is, if you had the opportunity to be drugged into bliss for eighty years in some special experiment, all of your needs taken care of, should you take it? I say, no, because it would be unhealthy; even if it does not damage your capabilities it is dysfunctional, and prevents you from using those capabilities.

But so what if it is unhealthy and dysfunctional?

Also, if happiness isn't the goal for a person or the human species the what is the goal?

If there is no goal, then there is no "should" or "should not".

 

[loseyourname]

But so what if it is unhealthy and dysfunctional?

Also, if happiness isn't the goal for a person or the human species the what is the goal?

If there is no goal, then there is no "should" or "should not".

There is a reason that happiness exists, evolutionarily speaking, and it isn't to promote happiness. It is to promote habits that lead to better evolutionary fitness. If we use your line of reasoning, we can conclude that evolutionary fitness is the best correlate of moral worth.

 

[learningphysics]

There is a reason that happiness exists, evolutionarily speaking, and it isn't to promote happiness. It is to promote habits that lead to better evolutionary fitness.

Yes, that may be how happiness came to exist. To say the "purpose" of happiness is to promote evolutionary fitness, is to give nature a mind and a goal which we have no reason to believe unless you bring in a god. Evolution simply is... there is no purpose there, any more than the purpose of objects of mass is to attract each other.

If we use your line of reasoning, we can conclude that evolutionary fitness is the best correlate of moral worth.

I'm not sure I understand this.

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, that may be how happiness came to exist. To say the "purpose" of happiness is to promote evolutionary fitness, is to give nature a mind and a goal which we have no reason to believe unless you bring in a god. Evolution simply is... there is no purpose there, any more than the purpose of objects of mass is to attract each other.

Of course, but there is no more purpose in happiness. It exists only to promote evolutionary fitness, not because of any intrinsic worth. Happiness only has worth because people give it worth. If someone places more value on health than happiness, so be it. You can't argue him out of it.

I'm not sure I understand this.

I could be wrong about your argument. It seems to me, however, that you are arguing along these lines:

The end goal of every human action is to maximize happiness.
Therefore, only happiness has intrinsic worth.

I'm suggesting that happiness is not the end goal of every human action, that happiness only serves to promote evolutionary fitness. We can then amend your argument to say:

Evolutionary fitness if the end goal of every human action.
Therefore, only evolutionary fitness has intrinsic worth.

 

[learningphysics]

Of course, but there is no more purpose in happiness. It exists only to promote evolutionary fitness, not because of any intrinsic worth. Happiness only has worth because people give it worth. If someone places more value on health than happiness, so be it. You can't argue him out of it.

That's true, I can't argue him out of it. However, where does this lead... It leads to an end to a discussion about morality... Any person places value on anything arbitrarily... There's no "should" anymore.

I could be wrong about your argument. It seems to me, however, that you are arguing along these lines:

The end goal of every human action is to maximize happiness.
Therefore, only happiness has intrinsic worth.

No, I'm saying the end goal of every human action SHOULD be to maximize happiness.

I've not made an argument as to why only happiness has intrinsic worth. There's no proof I can give. But it seems like beings "feeling good" is a good thing, and beings "feeling bad" is a bad thing. Beyond this I can't give any proof.

I'm suggesting that happiness is not the end goal of every human action, that happiness only serves to promote evolutionary fitness. We can then amend your argument to say:

Evolutionary fitness if the end goal of every human action.
Therefore, only evolutionary fitness has intrinsic worth.

Yes evolutionary fitness may be the result of every action whether we like it or not, but I don't see why that would mean evolutionary fitness has intrinsic worth. I don't think there's a way to prove intrinsic worth.

 

[Bartholomew]

I am not talking about purpose solely in the context of human beings, so I would not advocate evolutionary fitness as the goal. How would you define "evolutionary fitness" anyway? Number of offspring? Species longevity?

I mean health in every sort--human health, but also economic health, health of a computer system, etc. are what I am talking about. The vitality of systems is the source of all meaning; this is why I say it is the purpose. I'm not just arbitrarily elevating one characteristic above others; health is the fundamental.

 

[loseyourname]

So. I was only stating that evolutionary fitness is the end goal of living systems to reduce learningphysics argument that only happiness has intrinsic worth to an absurdity. I wasn't even commenting on your argument regarding health.

Although, if you insist, I can. You say that the vitality of all systems is the source of all meaning, but what is meaning? Only an intelligent being capable of subjective experience can even have a concept of meaning, at least as far as I can tell. The health of an economic system is of no consequence to the economic system. It is only important that the system function in a healthy way because that's what humans want it to do. There is no objective reason for this. The only thing fundamental is human want, but even that is not always consistent from human to human.

Not to say that health isn't important, but I have trouble seeing this as any kind of meaningful ethical argument, which is what you seem to be attempting to make by saying that health is "better" than "happiness." Unless you specify that health is better for the purpose of attaining some particular goal, "better" just sounds to me like you are saying that health has more moral worth. You state that health itself is the end-goal of all systems, but I don't think that is the case. In the case of the health of a living system, the end goal is to remain healthy long enough to reproduce, hence evolutionary fitness. In the case of non-living systems, health is important because it serves the purposes of the living systems that created the non-living systems. In the case of non-living systems that were not created by living system, such as, say, the solar system, health does not matter at all. The solar system could hardly care whether it functioned or not. It doesn't have the goal of being healthy; it is simply healthy because that's the way it is.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, there is the question of what qualifies as evolutionarily "fit" (numbers or species longevity) and whether there is any goal involved. That which has a tendency to survive and propogate, survives and propogates; that which has a tendency to die and wane, dies and wanes. Why favor one path over the other?

I think I'm not going to go into the intellectual reasons to favor health over anything else. I believe it is an intuitive truth that when things are churning along free from junk or inefficiency there is an attractive power about it. It is better to be vital; by definition it is a higher state, maintaining the functional essentials of the unhealthy but making it all work better. Call it fulfillment. When a system does what it can do in an efficient, effective way, it is fulfilled. Its purpose is inherent in its form.

 

[loseyourname]

There is no purposeful reason to favor one path over the other. The only reason the path that produces more life is evolutionarily "better" is because it produces things that evolve. Dead things do not.

The "attractive power" of health is just another evolutionary device. Health is attractive to you, so you pursue health. The pursuit of health helps you to survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore, genes or learned behaviors or any other factor that causes a living organism to pursue good health tend to proliferate in higher proportions than factors that cause the reverse. This includes the innate (genetically hard-wired) attraction of your mind to good health.

 

[Bartholomew]

I am not talking solely about human health. The attractive power of which I speak can be seen in any healthy system.

"purpose inherent in its form" is the idea. A physical form contains a characteristic nature. To achieve purpose, purify the form and realize the nature. The nature of man is to think and move. Man's nature should be enabled and realized.

I am thinking of a children's story I read about a woodcarver. He could see forms inherent in pieces of wood. One piece of wood might make him think of a spoon, another might make him think of a bowl, and he would bring each form out by carving. This is the process.

 

[loseyourname]

I am not talking solely about human health. The attractive power of which I speak can be seen in any healthy system.

How? Name me a non-living system that is "attracted" to good health? It seems to me that the second law of thermodynamics dictates exactly the opposite. The "purest form" of our universe, to borrow your terminology from below, is one in which no organizational systems exist at all, functioning or otherwise. Does that mean the "purpose" of our universe is simply to degrade into homogeneity?

"purpose inherent in its form" is the idea. A physical form contains a characteristic nature. To achieve purpose, purify the form and realize the nature. The nature of man is to think and move. Man's nature should be enabled and realized.

You're beginning to sound like Aristotle. Why is the purpose of something inherent in its form? Why does anything have to have a purpose at all? Teleology doesn't seem to exist independently of the conception of intelligent, living beings. It's like you're saying the purpose of a rock is to be the purest form of rock it can be. Why? Do you really think the rock cares?

I am thinking of a children's story I read about a woodcarver. He could see forms inherent in pieces of wood. One piece of wood might make him think of a spoon, another might make him think of a bowl, and he would bring each form out by carving. This is the process.

Take the woodcarver out of the story. Would it still have any meaning?

 

[Bartholomew]

You take an automobile apart and look at all its workings and then put it back together and go for a drive. You can deduce that the automobile has the design to transport someone from one place to another with certain qualifications. It happened to be designed by humans, but if it had spontaneously popped into existence through quantum effects it would have the same design and the parts of its system would work together in the same way to produce locomotion. The car's function is quite undeniably inherent in the car's form.

Yes, the story would be meaningful without the woodcarver. He is only a medium. In this discussion, the story is about the emergence of forms from the wood. It irritates me that you did not understand my meaning.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You take an automobile apart and look at all its workings and then put it back together and go for a drive. You can deduce that the automobile has the design to transport someone from one place to another with certain qualifications. It happened to be designed by humans, but if it had spontaneously popped into existence through quantum effects it would have the same design and the parts of its system would work together in the same way to produce locomotion. The car's function is quite undeniably inherent in the car's form.

Yes, the story would be meaningful without the woodcarver. He is only a medium. In this discussion, the story is about the emergence of forms from the wood. It irritates me that you did not understand my meaning.

The reason we don't understand is that you aren't clear about what conclusion you are drawing. The car in this latest example sounds just like Paley's watch, a standard argument of Inteligent Design, and the discussion of taking apart and reassembling a working device (something we can't yet do with living cells but can do with viruses) suggests a frequent argument by creationists. But your overall purpose does not seem to be creationist at all. Could you just state your conclusion without arguing for it, so we can have clarity?

 

[Bartholomew]

The health of systems, which is the realization and actualization of the forms inherent in them, is the purpose of systems.

 

[Bartholomew]

SelfAdjoint, hello?

 

[Dissident Dan]

It has no intrinsic value.

Wow, you've got it exactly backwards. I agree with learning physics. Health is only important insofar as it allows happiness. I can't explain why happiness is good because there's no way to explain what it is. You can't explain feelings. But when you are happy, you know what happiness is, and you know that it is good.

 

[Bartholomew]

If you're in a happy situation but haven't met a deadline, you will often of your own will not permit yourself to enjoy the situation as much as you could. Some of this is reduction of happiness is involuntary but much of it is willful. Happiness is not an end in itself, because you are capable of simply shunting it aside. It would, indeed, seem "wrong," not "good," to enjoy the happiness that you have in that situation.

You might say that in this situation you put aside the current happiness in hopes of obtaining more happiness in the future, but the man in the future is not you. He is another person who differs from you in many ways. The linguistic convention of considering him to be you is only a convention.

The standard you really are adhering to in setting aside current happiness is the standard of healthy behavior.


Think about this: Every system does what the forms inherent in it do. This action is the be-all and end-all for the system. The expression of forms is the only activity of forms. To adhere to this better, the system must be made healthier, the forms more pronounced.

Your unspoken overriding goal in life is to do what someone such as you would do; you'll find it impossible to willfully do otherwise. To achieve that goal better, your human system must work better.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Forms, schmorms.

I believe that, at least as long as I have been continually conscious, my future self is me. Even if that's not the case, my future self has as much right to happiness as my present self.

 

[Bartholomew]

Who knows if you've been "continually conscious"? Nobody. Consciousness outside the present moment is unknowable, and the only reason you think it's continuous is that you have conscious memory--memory which is simply another aspect of your _current_ consciousness.

Where does altruism factor in if the goal is simply happiness?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Where does altruism factor in if the goal is simply happiness?

Others' happiness is as important as mine.

 

[Bartholomew]

If you had a wallet-sized machine that would short circuit someone's brain in an instant so that they became deliriously happy for the rest of their lives and for other purposes a human vegetable, would you run around using it on people? Assume that for the limited number of people you'd be able to zap, society would provide for them.

Would you murder chronically depressed people who nonetheless didn't want to die?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I would not want to force my will on someone like that. There is danger when one believes that one is indubitably correct and has the right to force his/her will upon others as one sees fit. That is tyranny, and tyranny has always led to problems. For example, the pleasure center that is being stimulated in your hypothetical situation could become less responsive over time, and the person could become "bored", if you will, with that type of experience, leading to a boring vegetative state.

Also, I have an irrational desire to do things more cognitively complex than sit in a drug-like stupor. I would have trouble reducing others' cognitive capabilities, knowing that I would not want this done to myself, however irrational my desire is.

 

[Bartholomew]

No, assume the device is perfect and does what it is designed to do, and then answer the question.

Why do you call your desire to do cognitively complex things irrational, and your desire for happiness rational? The only reason you gave for happiness is that it "feels right." If other things feel right aside from happiness, why do you not apply the same reason?