5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness

maru · 22 Mar 2005, 18:54 · from 2005-March.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: marudubshinki at gmail.com (maru)
Date: Tue Mar 22 18:54:28 2005
Subject: (urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness
In-Reply-To: <BAY102-F2097D704FA06785B657D90B94D0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BAY102-F2097D704FA06785B657D90B94D0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4240DA60.8020701 at gmail.com>

Iorwerth Thomas wrote:

> There's an example from a book of ethical dillemas [1] on how 
> following Kant's categorical imperative regarding honesty made a 
> female correspondant of his (and probably by extension everyone around 
> her) extremely _unhappy_.  Utilitarianism has a place in any well 
> thought out moral philosophy, but it probably shouldn't be the only 
> consideration.  Happiness at large tends to mean the happiness of the 
> majority in the eyes of many [2]; this can lead to people suggesting 
> some fairly twisted things.
>
'And ye shall know them by their fruit'?

> (At a risk of introducing a political argument into the thread, I'd 
> ask people to examine the position of the leader of the British 
> Opposition towards the travelling minority, and whether it'd be easier 
> for him to make his case were he a utilitarian.)
>
Well, I'm visiting England tomorrow. I'll pick up some papers and see if 
I can.

>
>> I'd have argued that a Christian is someone who doesn't want to 
>> suffer the eternal torment of Hell, and so believes in Jesus and does 
>> what their church tells'em.
>>
>
> There's no actual set definition of what a Christian believes (bar the 
> Nician (sp?) creed, and maybe not even that, if you're a liberal 
> Anglican).   There has been, since the inception of the religion, a 
> strand that believes that either
>
> a)  No one is in Hell, since God is merciful
> b) Hell is temporary, intended to reform, for the same reason.
>
> It's called Universalism; there's some textual evidence that Paul was 
> one [3].  It lost steam once most people in the West were Christain, 
> largly because the worry that Uncle Bob, the virtuous worshipper of 
> Zeus, would have somewhat unfairly wound up in Hell became less of an 
> issue.
>
Too bad; the idea that one should suffer infinitely for merely finitely 
crimes is a really lousy one, which has caused untold mental torment.

> It's tempting to suggest that someone whose primary motivation for 
> being a Christian was fear of Hell probably wouldn't do a good job of 
> escaping Hell (if indeed, it exists and there's anyone in there) 
> becase they have the wrong motivation for what they do.
>
> [3]  On the other hand, there's textual evidence for almost any view 
> of Paul that you wish to put forwards.
>
>>> On second thoughts, if you're correct, I doubt anyone _should_ have 
>>> a problem with such a motivation, as it's quite clearly unselfish.  
>>> Mich ink has no doubt been spilled on such issues.
>>>
>>> Iorwerth
>>>
>> Arrgh. The point was that even apparently unselfish, principled 
>> actions can be as well, if not better, understood as enlightened 
>> selfishness as well.  But fortunately no ink need die for our debate. 
>> No, 'tis the electrons and phospors who shall suffer.
>>
> I think my chief problem with this is that they could probably be 
> understood just as well in a Jungian or Freudian outlook, depending 
> taste - they all tend to reduce motivations to one primary thing, 
> power, sex, happiness, whereas we always have several, including those 
> we aren't aware of.  Also, not having access to people's inner 
> thoughts, we can't know.
>
> I'd like to observe that to a certain extent, I'm one of those people 
> you describe; the problem is - my inability to be happy while those 
> around me are unhappy doeas not imply that, in order to do what I must 
> to make them happy, I'll wind up happy.  It just means that if they're 
> unhappy, so am I.
>
> Iorwerth
>
Wait- I must be misunderstanding you here; if truly they being unhappy 
means you too are unhappy, then their being happy is a *necessary* 
pre-recequisite, thusly for you to be happy you must previously had 
helped them become happy (if necessary). If the link only works as a 
downer, well that just sucks.

~Maru

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net