Morality's Utility and Purpose from a Non-Religious Perspective of Moral Relativism

Author: Critical-Tim
Morality
Ethics
Atheism
Moral Relativism

Posts

Total: 40
Topic's author
#1
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I would like to discuss the utility and intended purpose of morality from a non-religious perspective of Moral Relativism.

The questions I would like to discuss are as follows:
What is the intended purpose of morality?
We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
How does The Greater Good align with morality?
Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good)
Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?

I acknowledge many people will want to give their religious and non-relativist perspective, please do it on a different forum as I would appreciate a non-religious perspective for this forum about morals from a relativist view.
#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
"What is the intended purpose of morality?" - Critical-Tim
Depends on the morality.

"We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?"- Critical-Tim
Depends what one considers an advantage.

"How does The Greater Good align with morality?"- Critical-Tim
Depends what one considers the Greater Good, or morality.

"Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good)"- Critical-Tim
Because there are different moralities.

"Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?"- Critical-Tim
Because there are different moralities.

You said not to mention a religious perspective,
But I will anyway, as it need not be.

My religious family members define immorality as hurting people,
Morality as doing what is right, helping people, I suppose.

I'd suppose for many people the purpose of morality is to 'be moral,
Circular I suppose,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Though I don't define morality as doing right by other people,
I often use that definition in conversation.
Common definition.
. .
'Reason for that definition,

You can break a single arrow, easier than a bundle.

A house divided, cannot stand.
. .

Reason it even applies to outsiders, often,
Is that dehumanize others,
Can be easier to dehumanize parts of one's own society.

Though many societies exist 'based on 'only applying morality to one's own group.
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If I encourage other's to do right to others including me,
But secretly do wrong myself,
I can enrich myself financially in this manner,
. .
But possible I will suffer emotionally, mentally,
If I believe this is wrong,
Or because of my own actions, cannot trust others,
Cannot 'like others.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Course, depends on definitions of suffer, or doing 'Right/'Wrong are.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Greater Good,
'Can contrast with smaller goods,
If smaller goods are not viewed as 'less,
As not mere means to ends, of the Greater Good.


#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,716
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The Greater Good can sometimes be rather unpleasant. Like, harvesting organs from prisoners would save lots of lives. Its just that the idea itself is repulsive.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,294
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Saving lives might not be for the greater good.

Where do you get your authority from.

As I don't remember anywhere in the Bible GODDO reputedly saying, go forth and harvest organs from the prisoners for the greater good.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,716
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
This isnt about religion. I am talking about the meaning of the greater good.
#6
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
What is the intended purpose of morality?
To allow groups of people to co-exist.

We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
I tend to think morality provides a net-benefit to society. An absence of it would be the opposite - it would be harmful.

How does The Greater Good align with morality?
I'd say they go hand in hand. 

Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good?
Maybe because we can't actually know what is best for the greater good in given situations. I don't know. 

Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?
What things are those?
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,135
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I pray to the Simulation Creators that you all find Humanism.
Topic's author
#8
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
The Greater Good can sometimes be rather unpleasant. Like, harvesting organs from prisoners would save lots of lives. Its just that the idea itself is repulsive.
That is a perfect example of something I want to discuss. It would seem to me that people who are sentenced to death should if in good health be harvested for organs to save innocent people who would have died to the tragedy of genetic conditions. It seems quite wasteful to just kill them.
Topic's author
#9
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I first wanted to see everyone's interpretations of what I was describing and come up with their own examples. Now I will go into the specific ones I had thought of when I first created this forum.

What is the intended purpose of morality:
Assuming the stance of a moral relativist, and from a non-religious perspective, people and civilization have created morals. Are morals created with an intended purpose that people first had when creating civilization or are they just the average of biological emotions?

We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality:
I can't provide an example of this since I don't have any experience with a non-moral environment. However, I could imagine it being much less stable than our current civilization. Many things would be simpler and flow more streamlined without so many hoops to jump through as moral constraints. A clear example of this would be research in the genetic field for homo sapiens.
 
How does The Greater Good align with morality:
The greater good is considered the greater summation of good. For instance, torturing one person to save 100 would be considered the greater good as there is a greater summation of good that is done and less evil. Nonetheless this is still considered an immoral act. Therefore, this example demonstrates that the greater good does not always align with morality. This is because The Greater Good judge's morals by the summation of their actions and morals judge them by face value.

Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good):
This question doesn't quite have an example to demonstrate it but I guess it would most similarly relate to the previous one. Why is it that morality does not align with the greater good in the previous example. One would think that what is considered good is the most good option, and something that is considered immoral is the least moral action. We used the greater good to justify our existence every day. We say it's all right for humans to exist even though we know that carbon emissions and many other imprints created by humanity's existence are devastating and quite hazardous to people with lung problems or other animals and species and we do not consider this immoral. We consider it completely moral to be alive and this is because it is worse to kill everyone than to live and continue making problems for other things and other people. Why is it different to use the greater good in the example of torturing one to save a 100, than to use it in justifying our own existence? There doesn't seem to be a consistency between morals and the greater good.

Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world:
Perhaps if we had one human specimen to conduct research and clone, we could create organs to save people throughout the world at an affordable price. However, even though it would be most definitely more beneficial to the world we consider this immoral. Why is it that morals can sometimes deny benefit if morals are meant to be beneficial to society and the world?
Topic's author
#10
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
My current theory is that morality was consciously created to cultivate a stable society. This is based upon the idea that you don't need morals if you're alone. There must be two or more individuals to have a moral system, which would imply morals are an agreement between multiple parties. Additionally, the ultimate agreement for a group of individuals would be how to conduct themselves to have a stable community.

There are two types of stable societies: Tyranny and Democracy.
Tyranny, as shown throughout history, is only a short-term solution to a stable society.
Meanwhile, democracy is the long-term solution to a stable society.
- Therefore, the best solution to a stable society is democracy.

Ultimately, it would be most beneficial to have a society that has a unified agreement for proper conduct (aka morals) that cultivates an environment where people are willingly drawn towards. A society where people willingly accumulate that would inevitably promote growth and further stability.

In essence, my theory is that morals were consciously created to cultivate a stable and unified society where individuals willingly participate, further cultivating growth and stability. I believe originally what was considered good, was what is beneficial to society's stability and growth; and what was considered bad, was what is disruptive to society's stability and growth.
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,716
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
That is a perfect example of something I want to discuss. It would seem to me that people who are sentenced to death should if in good health be harvested for organs to save innocent people who would have died to the tragedy of genetic conditions. It seems quite wasteful to just kill them.
In the USA, there is 90,000 people who need kidney.

There is over a million prisoners in prisons in USA.

Some prisoners committed acts that are so horrible that almost everyone agrees they deserve to suffer.

Making a person donate a kidney would be good for those who need kidney. Person who committed horrible acts deserves to suffer. Making such person donate a kidney would not kill such person. Making such person donate a kidney would cause some of the deserved suffering on that person. Making such person donate a kidney would save a life of another person. Good action results in saving lives and punishing evil. Therefore, making such person donate a kidney is a good action.

The moral example becomes even more obvious in cases of death penalty. If person did something so horrible to deserve death penalty, person's organs can be used to save lives. Therefore, making that person donate all organs would save multiple lives. That person would die with or without donating organs, therefore donating organs does not harm that person's life.
Topic's author
#12
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Making a person donate a kidney would be good for those who need kidney. Person who committed horrible acts deserves to suffer. Making such person donate a kidney would not kill such person. Making such person donate a kidney would cause some of the deserved suffering on that person. Making such person donate a kidney would save a life of another person. Good action results in saving lives and punishing evil. Therefore, making such person donate a kidney is a good action.
This is a primary example to my question: We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
Yes, there are benefits. Why are morals the way they are? Is there a given purpose or utility they have? Why do we use them if they can be hindersome?

Who's to say that one moral is correct and another wrong? We need to be conscious of our choices and identify exactly what moral's purpose and utility is, and then we will be capable of identifying false morals. I believe the example above demonstrates a false moral that society has deemed immoral without rational thought or reasoning, and we should pursue a means to a solution to solve this. I don't want to be an idiot who follows an ideology and merely states this is how it has always been, when this is false, there was a time when morals didn't exist. Which morals aren't following the intended path and need to be eliminated, and potentially we could produce a more beneficial and productive judicial system. 
Topic's author
#13
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is the intended purpose of morality?
To allow groups of people to co-exist.
That is quite a similar theory to my own. My current theory is that morality was consciously created to stabilise and unify society.

We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
I tend to think morality provides a net-benefit to society. An absence of it would be the opposite - it would be harmful.
I agree that morality has a net positive benefit, and the complete absence of morality would be harmful. Although, in the process of identifying what morals are intended for we could limit the unnecessary ones therefore producing the same amount of net benefit while restricting the morals that hinder us from doing positive.

How does The Greater Good align with morality?
I'd say they go hand in hand. 
Not all people agree that it is justifiable to sacrifice one person to save 99 if they are innocent. Morally it's wrong to make any human sacrifice especially if it is against their will. Alternatively, the greater good says against their will we're going to sacrifice them to save 99 lives. I view the greater good as a more pragmatic approach to morality.

Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good?
Maybe because we can't actually know what is best for the greater good in given situations. I don't know. 
My current theory is that they are not distinguishable because people lack conscious knowledge of their moral choices. People understand morality as what has been accepted for as long as they can remember and stick with that. However, I believe if they had any sort of consistency or rational thought that morality would more closely align or ideally match the greater good. Of course, I would define good as what is beneficial towards what morals are meant to provide. The greater good is a summation analysis of morality on a long-term scale. Morality is sort of a child's view of in the moment what is good and bad for right now, while the greater good takes into account the future and the sum of all negative and the sum of all positive and weighs out the best possible option in a much more conscious understanding.

Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?
What things are those?
An excellent example was given by Best.Korea in my previous response. It would be beneficial more beneficial to the world to take criminals who deserve to be punished or executed and harvest their organs for innocent lives that could be saved, but this is considered immoral in our current society.
#14
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
Not all people agree that it is justifiable to sacrifice one person to save 99 if they are innocent.
And neither would I. I don't think killing an unwilling participant (guilty or innocent) to help any number of people is actually for the greater good. Granted, you may directly help 99 people, but you will terrify many many more which stands to cause a destabilization of society.

An excellent example was given by Best.Korea in my previous response. It would be beneficial more beneficial to the world to take criminals who deserve to be punished or executed and harvest their organs for innocent lives that could be saved, but this is considered immoral in our current society.
I don't think that act would be more beneficial to society for the same reason I listed above.  
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,294
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
So was I.

And I was questioning your exemplar.

So notwithstanding your usual religious and moral fervour.

How do you know it is for the greater good to:

A. Medically and surgically keep people alive.

B. Harvest organs from healthy prisoners.


#16
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,290
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
@Critical-Tim
A place and time for everything and everything in its correct time and place.

..." Why Agonize Over Hiroshima, Not Dresden?

...First, the key facts about the bombing of Dresden on the night of February 13-14, 1945, 10 weeks before Germany’s surrender, when everyone knew that Germany was beaten: Dresden was a beautiful Baroque city known as the Florence of the north. It had no war industry and little military value.

.....Its population of 630,000 had been doubled by German refugees, mainly peasants from Silesia fleeing the Red Army."..

...." he concerted British and American attack dropped 650,000 incendiary bombs, causing a firestorm engulfing eight square miles and killing an estimated 135,000 men, women and children."....

There is old saying that ' all is fair in love and war ', i.e. there are no rules, even tho there was some attempt at some humanism on the battefield. Dont shoot those surrending {white flag }? Dont shoot red cross medical personnel?

To what ever extent most, many, on average, less than half, will sacrifice morality and kill even when not immediately neccessary. Sometimes out of rage, sometimes out of other reasons.
Topic's author
#17
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I believe that fear is a valid contribution to the equation. However, I believe that after many lives have been saved that the views of people will change. Many people are ignorant of what doesn't directly affect them. For instance, organ donation. Although, I do believe that it still has more benefits than negatives and if it does then it would be considered the greater good. An important thing to consider when evaluating the greater good is not just to collect the summation of all positives and negatives for the action and inaction of a specific choice but also to weigh it across all time. I believe that the fear is a valid contributing to the present, but I believe that the people who would have been saved would be inspired by the technology related to medical benefits and would become many doctors and physicians who would go on to benefit the world even further.
Topic's author
#18
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
So notwithstanding your usual religious and moral fervour.

How do you know it is for the greater good to:
A. Medically and surgically keep people alive.
B. Harvest organs from healthy prisoners.
That is mainly what this topic is about. We're taking the approach of a non-religious moral relativist and trying to determine the intended purpose of morality's existence. Once we identify the purpose of morality, we can identify true and false morals that respectively align and not align with the intended purpose. Then we will have the ability to determine what is good from evil, since good is moral and evil is immoral.
Topic's author
#19
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
To what ever extent most, many, on average, less than half, will sacrifice morality and kill even when not immediately neccessary. Sometimes out of rage, sometimes out of other reasons.
I agree, a person's actions are greatly affected by the context of the situation and whether they use biological response or conscious logic is not known unless the environment is. Our goal in this forum is to take the approach of a non-religious moral relativist and determine the intended purpose of morality's existence. Once we identify the purpose of morality, we can identify true and false morals that respectively align and not align with the intended purpose. Then we will have the ability to determine what is good from evil, since good is moral and evil is immoral.
#20
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
We are far apart on this. You are essentially arguing against consent and self ownership. I just can't follow you down that path.

Self-ownership cannot be undermined without calling into question every human right. The short term and local benefit does not, and cannot, outweigh the damage this would cause to the societal infrastructure. 
Topic's author
#21
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
We are far apart on this. You are essentially arguing against consent and self ownership. I just can't follow you down that path.
Self-ownership cannot be undermined without calling into question every human right. The short term and local benefit does not, and cannot, outweigh the damage this would cause to the societal infrastructure. 
I believe you're confused, I never once claimed to hold a belief of which you are speaking. I don't claim Morality or The Greater Good is superior to the other but merely expressing what they are. I'm asking a question, not giving an answer. Would you walk me down your train of thought? What are Morals intended purpose, and why do they not correlate with The Greater Good?

I was telling you what The Greater Good is relative to Morality by explaining their differences. I'm asking why they don't match and why do we have them.
#22
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe you're confused, I never once claimed to hold a belief of which you are speaking. 
It certainly seemed you were advocating killing one person to save 99 with explicit words to that effect. My mistake. 

I'm asking a question, not giving an answer. Would you walk me down your train of thought? What are Morals intended purpose, and why do they not correlate with The Greater Good?
I've answered these questions.

I was telling you what The Greater Good is relative to Morality by explaining their differences. I'm asking why they don't match and why do we have them.
The 'greater good' is a phrase associated with a particular moral theory: utilitarianism. Within that moral theory, the greater good and morality are the same. If you have a different moral perspective, then the greater good might have no relevance. The answer to your question depends on your moral viewpoint. 


Topic's author
#23
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was telling you what The Greater Good is relative to Morality by explaining their differences. I'm asking why they don't match and why do we have them.
The 'greater good' is a phrase associated with a particular moral theory: utilitarianism. Within that moral theory, the greater good and morality are the same.
That is very helpful! Utilitarianism is indeed the moral structure associated with creating the greatest summation of good across all time which is in essence the greater good.

If you have a different moral perspective, then the greater good might have no relevance. The answer to your question depends on your moral viewpoint. 
The greater good is also founded upon the idea of what one would consider good and that is dependent on their moral structure, as you have pointed out.

---------------------------------------------------
This adds another layer of depth to the understanding that morality is a system created to cultivate a stabilized society or community. There are many things that could create stability and cultivate uniformity and therefore you have pointed out a more nuanced understanding must be identified.

There are many things that help create uniformity and stability within a society, including happiness, wellbeing, justice/fairness, and human rights. I believe that one of these sticks out from the rest and that would be happiness. It seems to me that all the others are derivatives that are meant to promote happiness within a society.

Do you believe it is correct to assume that all people would rather be happy than anything else? I believe if people are happy then they would be willing to give up other things that do not bring them happiness, and that things such as human rights and wellbeing are merely the structures that we've developed to help cultivate happiness but they themselves are not what humans strive for. It seems correct to assume that when people promote human rights and wellbeing for others that they are not directly trying to promote human rights and wellbeing but rather what those cultivate and that being happiness seems that the ultimate goal to achieve is happiness for all individuals.

Do you agree with me on this so far or see any flaws in my logic, and does anyone have any alternative views of what the ultimate goal is to achieve?
Topic's author
#24
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
As it has been pointed out, the relationship between "the greater good" and "morality," is that morality is founded upon the person's structure of right and wrong; whereas "the greater good" is founded upon the summation of an action's morality across all time, which is dependent on the moral structure. This would imply that "the greater good" is a complex derivative of morality while both are dependent on the accepted moral structure.

This clearly answers yet another one of my questions. I appreciate the mental stimulation, and the contributions towards understanding this complex topic.
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,294
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
As a philosophical exercise I assume?
#26
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
There are many things that help create uniformity and stability within a society, including happiness, wellbeing, justice/fairness, and human rights. I believe that one of these sticks out from the rest and that would be happiness
Agree.

It seems correct to assume that when people promote human rights and wellbeing for others that they are not directly trying to promote human rights and wellbeing but rather what those cultivate and that being happiness seems that the ultimate goal to achieve is happiness for all individuals.
I would agree, but I would point out well-being and human rights are recognized as necessary for happiness and not just tools to achieve happiness. Without well-being and basic rights happiness is limited and humanity is diminished. 
Topic's author
#27
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems correct to assume that when people promote human rights and wellbeing for others that they are not directly trying to promote human rights and wellbeing but rather what those cultivate and that being happiness seems that the ultimate goal to achieve is happiness for all individuals.
I would agree, but I would point out well-being and human rights are recognized as necessary for happiness and not just tools to achieve happiness. Without well-being and basic rights happiness is limited and humanity is diminished. 
I agree they are necessary. I wanted to point out that the ultimate goal is not human rights or fairness, but rather happiness. If we are to assume that happiness is the ultimate goal for a society, and that it would cultivate uniformity and stability, then we could assume the purpose of morality through its process of community agreement to stabilize society would be to promote happiness to all. Would you agree this is accurate, or is there evidence to the contrary?
Topic's author
#28
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
Perhaps happiness itself is just a step towards the ultimate goal, which from an evolutionary standpoint would be the procreation of oneself, which often is intertwined with happiness. This would lead to the illusion that happiness is the ultimate goal.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,294
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Happiness is a temporary experience that occurs randomly.....Or so it seems.

Whereas contentment is bliss.

Overthink and over-expectation are the enemies of both happiness and contentment.

If one strives from day one to achieve happiness, one will not achieve contentment and therefore moments of  happiness are likely to be infrequent.

Of course, we are embedded with physiological purpose and conscious trepidation.....Which doesn't help.

And neither do the vagaries of social interaction help.

From this brief surmise, I would have to conclude that happiness will occur, but with varying frequency relative to circumstance.

And striving to achieve contentment is a contradiction in terms.


If our ultimate goal is to achieve a state of blissful contentment this would seem to coincide appropriately with death.
Topic's author
#30
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Happiness is a temporary experience that occurs randomly.....Or so it seems.
As you pointed out, it would be more of a permanent state of happiness (joy) people are in search of.

If our ultimate goal is to achieve a state of blissful contentment this would seem to coincide appropriately with death.
The truth of this would be dependent on a person's view of contentment. A person might only be satisfied or content with being positive in which case would be better than death. However, it is possible a person could be satisfied with just not being tortured in which case their view of contentment is relatable to the absence of all things (death).