Do people deserve "happiness", and can such a thing be defined or obtained?
There are those that have everything they could ever want and will never be happy. There are those that have very little, and are very happy. Happiness comes from within. It's not having everything you want, it's wanting everything you have.
Happiness is something very personal and thus very hard to quantify. Everyone deserves the right to find what makes them happy, within reason. (For instance, a serial killer doesn't deserve to be happy if being happy means he gets to cut up people who don't want to get cut up.)
It's an interesting topic. A few weeks ago we had a discussion in class. It was about choosing between constant bliss and awareness of troubles and thus knowing worry, sadness and anxiety and such. Kind of a: would you want to know if you were in the matrix kind of deal.
It suprised me how many said that if they could choose they'd choose constant bliss.
I wouldn't. Society is too focussed on happyness for my taste; the media and the public opinion seem in agreement that it's an ideal state that you should be able to be in at all times. It's simply not, and constant bliss is not something you should try to go for as it will ironically make you less happy as well as the fact that 'happiness' is worth nill if you can't appreciate it. Just like how feeling love for someone is meaningless if you can't feel the sorrow after they've died. The surrender to the eternal sunshine of a spotless mind is to abandon the great and wonderfull range of faculties and feelings our minds have evolved to utilize and perceive. It's to willingly become a zombie and to close one off to a greater world; both scary and amazing. It's to fail to realize that happiness is a subjective process with it's value worth searching and existing for.
I'm in agreement, American youth, especially, are too concerned with personal happiness
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 07:47:47 PM
I'm in agreement, American youth, especially, are too concerned with personal happiness
Why? what's wrong with being happy? I spent most of my life cowtowing to philosophies that told me I had to sacrifice and that true happiness came from being a sheep that followed orders. You have the right to be happy and do what makes you happy. You don't have the right to make others unhappy by your actions. You can do things that make you happy and also be altrusitic and giving. They aren't separate things.
Being dutiful and servile is bullshit. Do what you want with your life.
Quote from: stromboli on May 11, 2014, 07:55:02 PM
Why? what's wrong with being happy? I spent most of my life cowtowing to philosophies that told me I had to sacrifice and that true happiness came from being a sheep that followed orders. You have the right to be happy and do what makes you happy. You don't have the right to make others unhappy by your actions. You can do things that make you happy and also be altrusitic and giving. They aren't separate things.
Being dutiful and servile is bullshit. Do what you want with your life.
100% this. Having wasted 23 years of my life being unhappy because, more or less, if you are doing something that makes you happy it more than likely is an abomination to god and you are a terrible person... life is too damn short to waste being unhappy for someone else's sake. I don't particularly care if I "deserve" to be happy or not in someone else's eyes anymore, because what good will that do me when I die? Nothing. I'll have wasted my life trying to fill other people's desires and have nothing to show for it.
Now, I do struggle with the concept of, "Why do I deserve to be happy when I could have just as easily been born in Somalia or wherever, in poverty and a war-torn country where I work at a sweat shop or am beaten or sold into prostitution and worse." and that one I think is a question worth asking and addressing.
Quote from: stromboli on May 11, 2014, 07:55:02 PM
Why? what's wrong with being happy? I spent most of my life cowtowing to philosophies that told me I had to sacrifice and that true happiness came from being a sheep that followed orders. You have the right to be happy and do what makes you happy. You don't have the right to make others unhappy by your actions. You can do things that make you happy and also be altrusitic and giving. They aren't separate things.
Being dutiful and servile is bullshit. Do what you want with your life.
I second that. Do what makes you happy.
Watch this video with the voice of the amazing philosopher, Alan Watts if you're confused about happiness and how you should live your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnFUDVpFwFQ
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 05:10:41 PM
Do people deserve "happiness", and can such a thing be defined or obtained?
Happiness is a positive emotion controlled by hormones such as serotonin that is released due to environmental triggers.
Positive emotions such as this are to reinforce behaviors and compel individuals to remain with certain environmental stimuli, for example, children feel positive emotions in the presence of their parents and feel negative emotions separated from them, compelling them to stay with their parents and the relative safety and care they provide.
Such things are only mysterious if you're not really interested in finding any answers.
I don't think human emotion can be broken down to chemical processes, chemistry explains how emotions work and not why there are emotions, emotions are mysterious because to an extent, evolution can't explain it, for example the thoughts and feelings of vegetarians, there isn't an evolutionary purpose to valuing the lives of other animals
Who said anything about evolution?
No one did, I was elaborating my point that emotion can't fully be explained by science
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 09:04:34 PM
for example the thoughts and feelings of vegetarians, there isn't an evolutionary purpose to valuing the lives of other animals
Er. Sure there is.
Could you enlighten me then? I genuinely don't understand how vegetarianism serves a purpose
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 09:10:09 PM
No one did, I was elaborating my point that emotion can't fully be explained by science
And you failed to do so.
I'd rather stay away from the topic of evolution for this conversation because while it is tangential, you simply are not ready for it and discussing it here would simply muddy the waters.
As for vegetarians, they feel empathy and sympathy for other animals. We feel these emotions for other humans as well. It helps us bond together as a group, which turns out to be beneficial for survival.
How does bonding with another species help, if a hunter gather were concerned with how their prey feels, they wouldn't survive
Remember, you can't say "happiness" without saying "penis"! And this makes me happy.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 09:10:09 PM
No one did, I was elaborating my point that emotion can't fully be explained by science
yes it can.
here you go.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin
It even has bonus explanations for the chemistry of morality for you.
Thanks for info and being straight forward
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
How does bonding with another species help,
Who says it does?
The various traits and behaviors humans exhibit are not always beneficial. This is true of other animals, like that lioness that adopted an impala calf.
I need a link for that, I can't believe a lioness adopted a calf
Thanks
I watched your videos and must ask why
Why does this behavior exist, science explains how, and I'm asking why
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 10:21:46 PM
I watched your videos and must ask why
Why does this behavior exist, science explains how, and I'm asking why
It's a result of evolution. Some animals evolved where nurturing and happiness benefits them. Happiness is the result, not the reason.
Do you, eggs, believe in scientism?
Not sure how to define it
Basically the belief that science can explain anything
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
How does bonding with another species help, if a hunter gather were concerned with how their prey feels, they wouldn't survive
It's a rather recent thing and really a luxury opinion. It's because of the absolute abundance and variety of non meat good sources that one can sustain such a diet.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
Not sure how to define it
Basically the belief that science can explain anything
Lol yes that IS the point of science. To explain things.
There is a scientific explanation for everything that exists. We may never learn all of them though.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 10:21:46 PM
I watched your videos and must ask why
Why does this behavior exist, science explains how, and I'm asking why
Sometimes "why" is not a legitimate question. Like Dawkins' "why do mountains exist?" It's simply not a legitimate question. Not everything has a purpose.
Another thing is that evolution can, and it does, produce a variety of traits that are not necessarily vital for survival, but don't hinder it either. Like the colour of Your eyes (correct me if I'm wrong, but it does nothing for or against Your survival).
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
How does bonding with another species help, if a hunter gather were concerned with how their prey feels, they wouldn't survive
This is a false statement. Are we concerned with the welfare of the animals we eat today? If so, why?
I think you need to read more about biology and evolution, and look at it in a MUCH broader sense than you are now.
Your questions are good ones, and answers to them can be found in bodies of research and in basic biology texts. I could spend hours explaining the role of behavior in survival and natural selection, but I could not do as much justice to the topic as a search of peer reviewed papers on these topics.
Try to work out some thought experiments. For example, what scenarios involving bonding with other species result in survival success for one or all species involved?
Google "symbiosis" for a very basic example.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 10:21:46 PM
I watched your videos and must ask why
Why does this behavior exist, science explains how, and I'm asking why
The video explains why. The lioness, for unknown reasons, had been rejected from her pride and was now on her own. Lacking the protection and companionship of other lions, and fearing for her life (because other lions would attack her if they could), she latched onto a baby oryx as the one thing that could provide her with company. It was apparently a form of obsessive-compulsive behavior, as she later adopted five more oryx babies after the first one was killed by a lion. Animals have the same sorts of emotions, fears, and hangups as humans. There are many, many examples of interspecies relationships, so this lioness with the oryx baby shouldn't surprise us much.
Why do animals and people have these feelings, not how or what, but why is life so social
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:10:25 PM
Why do animals and people have these feelings, not how or what, but why is life so social
:confused:
A. Because that's how they evolved, and not all animals are so social; there are many animals that are solitary and, when they encounter each other outside of reproductive scenarios (and often during) will kill one another.
B. 5 humans, lions, bears, wolves, what have you are going to live longer than one human, lion, bear, wolf on it's own. It gives you a better chance of taking down your prey or defeating/scaring a potential predator.
You also asked what the benefit of humans caring about animals was... look up our history with the dog, the cow, the horse to see how much of mankind's history up until about 100 years ago was absolutely dependent on these creatures to make society run smoothly.
Yeah mongols (horses). I was specifically referring to prehistory when saying why do people benefit from animals
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:10:25 PM
Why do animals and people have these feelings, not how or what, but why is life so social
You are very confused here, most likely due to indoctrinated religious beliefs that makes you believe in a guiding force. Take this baseless assumption away, and you will see that the way you phrased the question is absurd. (Also, people are animals, mammals, primates, apes - and yes, I made that list extremely short).
How = why. The reason these feelings developed is because it was beneficial for a species survival. If the parents of more advanced life forms (i.e. mammals like us) did not take care of their children, their species would not survive. Therefor only species with these feelings could survive. As empathy was a great and beneficial trait, it continued to be succeed - but evolution is not smart. It is not a thinking entity. Therefor said feelings of empathy can expand, and often do expand, beyond your own species - often to other animals that in some way resembles you - or look cute to you.
The logic can be simplified to "I like/am attached to this person/creature" or "This person/creature is like me". Empathy rarely comes with an absolutely off-switch. We are related to all living things, and this is also why all animals act so much like us (to varying degrees). They have emotions too, and we can feel these emotions as we can feel the emotions of those in our own species. You must have noticed that we often personify non-human animals. We attribute human emotions to them - and why not? To a certain degree they have them. In the case of vegetarians their principles or emotions are bound by them recognizing a larger group as important than that of others. A cannibal who eats the members of other tribes might be equally confused as to why you aren't like him/her, as you are by the vegetarians. It's all about who you consider worthy of life and respect, and to what degree they are worthy of life and respect.
Note that socialization can turn these things off, at least to a certain degree, or it can encourage them. Culture is a truly powerful tool that to a huge degree determines behavior.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:31:32 PM
Yeah mongols (horses). I was specifically referring to prehistory when saying why do people benefit from animals
Horses were around long before the mongols (and you might want to look at European history as well).
Humanity began to really get into the domestication around 9,000 B.C.E. (it was going on long before that, evidence of bee keeping goes back to at least 13,000 B.C.E.), while we had been domesticating plants since around 11,000 B.C.E. . Domesticated animals provide food, clothing, protection and companionship amongst a whole other slew of useful benefits.
I don't particularly understand what you are asking, because there is no way you cant see how useful animals have been to humanity with even the most basic of history knowledge...
I will clarify
How could we evolve to use other animals to our benefit? Animals of course help the human race but how could we have evolved beyond the desire to kill and eat our animals.
How did it happen within the context of evolution, pre homo sapien sapien
QuoteHow could we evolve to use other animals to our benefit?
We are intelligent creatures, infact it's our intelligence that kept our species from dying out a long, long time ago.
Quote... but how could we have evolved beyond the desire to kill and eat our animals.
We generally don't have a desire to kill and eat our own children, so it is obviously possible to form emotional bonds for us. Add that onto our intelligence and I don't see why it is outrageous to believe that we saw the benefit of animals and didn't just mindlessly eat them on site.
Good answers
Where did this intelligence come from? Like how did humans just happen to surpass the other animals in regards to intelligence
All animals are intelligent to a certain degree, we just happened to follow a path that relied more on problem solving. We weren't the fastest, or the strongest, so we needed tools and ideas. We needed to find and create weapons. Some of our closest relatives also do this to a certain degree.
QuoteWhere did this intelligence come from? Like how did humans just happen to surpass the other animals in regards to intelligence
Most likely due to a combination of factors.
Our ancestors were a common ancestor of modern apes. So for simplicity's sake, I'll state they were apes.
This tribe of ape like most apes lived in the jungles. However it had to leave it's old habitat. Perhaps because it was chased out by other apes. Perhaps because it ran out of food. ... I'm not sure
Regardless they entered open fields
In the savannah there were no abundance of trees to keep safe from the hunters on the ground. So these apes, like other primates already relatively intelligent creatures, learned that by standing up, they could better spot the predators. Those that could stand up better and look better for threats survived to procreate. Later those who could scuttle a few steps whilst walking had a greater chance for survival. And so along the line our ancestors learned to walk up straight, changing their fysiology drastically and allowing for different actions like carrying of food. It changed their lungs and posture, requiring a greater intake of air which allowed for slightly better develloped brains.
With their hands increasingly free for other things and facing threats on a daily basis, those with the best develloped brains could make the most of their environment. Those who learned to use simple tools, like sticks, again survived to procreate and became more dominant.
Enter climate fluctuations from about a million years ago. In this time of relative changing climate and thus surroundings, those who' had better brains had better chance of adapting to this uncertain environment. Again, those who had the best brains survived to procreate.
Some also point to our change in diet to include meat to have had positive influence, but I'm not too certain about this.
Bottom line, our brains and thus our capacity for intelligence evolved like everything else. Those with the best set of a particular way to adapt to the environment survived to procreate; giving more chance to pass on the random mutation that gave them a better chance of surviving. It's no different than 'why can cheetahs run so fast ' or 'why do wolves have sharp teeth' or 'why do chameleons blend into the environment so well' or 'why do ants form hives'. It's all evolution, the same core-process with different random mutations in different non-random environments.
Appreciated
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
I will clarify
How could we evolve to use other animals to our benefit? Animals of course help the human race but how could we have evolved beyond the desire to kill and eat our animals.
How did it happen within the context of evolution, pre homo sapien sapien
Think about this for a second.
You are in the wilderness alone with just some rags for clothes. A tiger comes to eat you. Do you think you would have a good chance of getting away/spotting it before it spots you?
New scenario. Same thing, but you have a group of friends. You're cave people so it's socially acceptable that you're wearing a loincloth instead of pants. And you're in the wildereness and there is the tiger again. Which scenario do you think gives you a better chance to survive? The one where you are all alone? or the one where you are in a group? And why do you have a better chance to survive?
I understand the benefit of other people, not other specimen
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 05:35:24 PM
I understand the benefit of other people, not other specimen
Ok then same thing, different animal.
Substitute person with deer.
You have a deer. Its in the woods all alone. A hungry predator is too.
or
You have a deer in a group of other deer with a hungry predator.
Which deer has a better chance of survival? and why?
Substitute it all you want with other animals, the result will be the same.
Well, we used to be the same species as their ancestors, in fact, our ancestors are their ancestors. We are related to every living being on this planet. ;)
It's largely a byproduct however. As I explained, empathy does no necessitate a definitive off-switch. The benefits for caring about humans used to be because you lived in small communities, and that if you helped them, they'd help you - but the impulse that was created was "care for humans". This causes us to care for people all around the world, including people who could never help us back. The impulse has no off-switch - at least not currently - and I hope it won't come.
Similarly "care about suffering" can be extended to different species, because we can recognize the same pain in them. Did you read my post about how we personify animals? I can expand upon it. Part of the scientific reason why we like cats for instance is that they to a certain degree looks like our human babies with their big heads and small bodies. We humans tend to adore animals that have these similarities to us, and that we can recognize part of ourselves in. While we love cats, dogs, rabbits, etc. we rarely love rats and cockroaches. Of course, this also has an evolutionary advantage as rats and bugs could carry diseases.
Thanks la dolce vita, is that Italian or Spanish? I know your user name means the sweet life but I'm not sure what language it is
It's Italian. I'm Norwegian however. La Dolce Vita from 1960, by Federico Fellini, is one of my favorite movies.
Cool
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 05:35:24 PM
I understand the benefit of other people, not other specimen
Did you Google "symbiosis"?
Yea symbiosis is when two animals work together for bettering both parties, and it's makes more sense but I still have questions
Are humans uniquely symbiotic? Or are other animals as social as we are, and when did this exceptional symbiotic behavior begin, at the Neanderthals? Homo erectus? Or does it go back to cellular biology
I do not understand the question "are humans uniquely symbiotic".
Do you mean are we the only species with relationships that affect one, some or all species involved? Most definitely not. Species interaction that benefits one or both parties is ubiquitous. These are commensal, mutualistic or parasitic relationships and they are found everywhere. Ants and aphids, parasites and anything they parasitize, and even the different single-celled organisms in biofilms and rhizobia.
I mean our species is very interactive with others, does another species interact with others the way humans do?
Yes. That is what I just wrote about.
Interaction with other species was done because it proved to be mutually advantageous. Feeding wolves that became tame made the switch their loyalty to humans and become protective towards them. Horses gave men advantages over men on foot. People receive nurturing from animals. My wife with MS has a caregiver Rat Terrier that is her constant companion. Ain't that hard to understand.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 05:10:41 PM
Do people deserve "happiness", and can such a thing be defined or obtained?
"Deserve happiness"? That's an interesting choice of words. I don't consider happiness something that is merited. Do people deserve sadness?
Well in high schools people prance about like they deserve the world on a silver platter, and I often question why anyone would think they deserve anything at all
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 08:53:14 AM
Well in high schools people prance about like they deserve the world on a silver platter, and I often question why anyone would think they deserve anything at all
Ah, but deserving happiness isn't necessarily the same as "deserving the world on a silver platter". Personally I feel happier when I get something through work and commitment than when I just get it on a silver platter.
Do we deserve happiness? I'd say we all deserve the right to pursue it, as long as our happiness doesn't infringe on someone else's. Whether you or me or anyone else will be able to achieve it is a completely different matter.
Wise words sir
Happiness is a home-brew and a quiet day home with nobody bothering me. And today I am quite happy.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 11, 2014, 05:10:41 PM
Do people deserve "happiness", and can such a thing be defined or obtained?
Of course you deserve happiness. Allow me to roll you some.(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/14/jupyqu4e.jpg)
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
I will clarify
How could we evolve to use other animals to our benefit? Animals of course help the human race but how could we have evolved beyond the desire to kill and eat our animals.
How did it happen within the context of evolution, pre homo sapien sapien
There seems to have been an increase in human intelligence around 40,000 years ago. This is when we see the earliest cave paintings, indicating that humans were starting to become creative and to think in more abstract terms than their predecessors. We do find things like arrowheads and spear points from long before then, but no artwork (or at least, none that has survived). It's not possible to know for sure, but this might also be when humans first began thinking of animals as something other than food. Wolves, following bands of hunting humans, could have sounded the alarm by barking when rival predators arrived at the kill site. It wouldn't have been much of a stretch to figure out that wolf pups raised among humans would bond to their human family and serve as warning and protection against rival tribes.
I think domestication of hoofed animals would have come much later. Horses can't really follow humans around and warn of impending danger the way a wolf can. Horses appear in cave art alongside bison, antelope, and other food animals and so were probably regarded as meat rather than companions or beasts of burden. So far, the earliest evidence of horse domestication dates to about 4000 BCE. What prompted this development is unknown.
Actually, artwork can be found much earlier. Like the Venus of Tan-Tan which is probably somewhere between 250.000 and 500.000 years old.
Happiness is also different from deserving the world on as silver platter because it only involves that person. It's a mindset.