4 ms·

>People's happiness depends more on the relative quality of their lives compared to others. It's a basic property of humanity. This used to be called "envy", a

>People's happiness depends more on the relative quality of their lives compared to others. It's a basic property of humanity. This used to be called "envy", and seen as a vice to be avoided. Interestingly, the description of it as a "basic property" of humanity is in a way similar to symbolic interpretations of the Christian notion of "original sin" (Christians/theologians please correct me if I'm wrong).

littletimmy 11y ago
Envy was also always related to greed. You seem to want a society where envy is absent, but greed drives economic growth. That won't happen.
- logicchains 11y ago
  >Envy was also always related to greed. They're related in that they're both pejorative terms for the act of wanting something, but their meanings differ. Envy means wanting something 'cos other people have it, greed means wanting something for some intrinsic property of the thing. E.g. if I want to get rich so I can afford a hundred hookers, coke and pizza a day, I want that for the intrinsic satisfaction those things bring, not because I care about having more hookers/coke/pizza than anyone else.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    I am not sure that the psychology of the hairless chimp makes this fine point when it is thinking about those two things. I think it goes "I see. I want. That thing shiny. That guy have - why I don't have?" But I get your point. It is another trick of the rich to use religion to solidify their wealth. You want what I have? Sin! I want to enclosure more land? Not sin.
fulafel 11y ago
Well, labeling it a vice to be avoided is just application of social pressure to suppress or shun this feature of the human psyche. "Inequality is just fine, feeling unhappy about inequality is a character flaw."
- logicchains 11y ago
  I'd argue that social pressure to shun this feature of the psyche is ultimately more productive for human happiness. Some people are always going to be luckier/smarter/harder working/more ruthless than others and they'll end up with more in pretty much any social system, so people who accept this inevitability are gonna be a lot happier than people who aren't happy as long as anyone else has more than them.
  - fulafel 11y ago
    These are not binary things. Other things being equal, a high inequality society is going to be less happy than a society with moderate inequality. The level of inequality is not inevitable: There's a wide spectrum of (in)equality levels in extant human communities, and it's widely accepted that inequality can be regulated by for example redistributing income or universal coverate of services like education and healthcare.
    - logicchains 11y ago
      I didn't mean to imply it was binary. All other things being equal, a society where people are less envious is going to be happier than a society where people are more envious.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      The same is true of sex partners - inequality there will also make society less happy. I've personally observed far more people unhappy that they can't get laid than that they don't make enough money. It's also widely accepted that this inequality can be regulated, for example by social norms discouraging female promiscuity. So I suppose you favor this also, in the interests of not being inconsistent?
      - fulafel 11y ago
        I'd be interested to see studies! Certainly societal structures that result in many people going without sexual partners sound undesireable, and probably rarer than structures where there is high economic inequality? I don't have enough information to be confident that your suggestion would increase happiness. Then there's the value question of happiness vs other virtues (which I also intentionally didn't go into in my inequality vs happiness arguments).
asgard1024 11y ago
> This used to be called "envy", and seen as a vice to be avoided. There are two sides to the coin. What you call "envy" has a very good (evolutionary) reason for its existence. Take a look at ultimatum game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game). If people didn't have capacity to deny unfair splits, even though they seem irrational, then they would be worse off. I posit that denying unfair splits in ultimatum game is envy. Think about it, envy is the reason to do it - the other party doesn't deserve the bigger split, so let's kill it for both! The similar game can be for instance used as a model of worker's strike against a capitalist. (I think in fact most people consider envy a vice only where it's extreme or there are other circumstances that make it unfair. But in general it's just an expression of longing for fairness.)
- logicchains 11y ago
  >What you call "envy" has a very good (evolutionary) reason for its existence An evolutionary reason isn't _necessarily_ a good reason, unless the definition of good is "helping propagate one's genes". Evolution doesn't select for "living a happy/contented life".
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    You're correct (that's why on second thought I put "evolutionary" in parens), but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have. Otherwise you are getting uncomfortably close to a Brave New World of always obedient individuals.
    - logicchains 11y ago
      >but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have This trait is only a subset of what's normally considered "envy". Not all of envy has an apparent use like that. E.g. if Joe feels bad because Neighbour Bob's house is 1030 square feet while Joe's house is only 1020 square feet, this doesn't really help anything, it just makes Joe unnecessarily miserable.

littletimmy 11y ago

Envy was also always related to greed. You seem to want a society where envy is absent, but greed drives economic growth. That won't happen.

logicchains 11y ago
>Envy was also always related to greed. They're related in that they're both pejorative terms for the act of wanting something, but their meanings differ. Envy means wanting something 'cos other people have it, greed means wanting something for some intrinsic property of the thing. E.g. if I want to get rich so I can afford a hundred hookers, coke and pizza a day, I want that for the intrinsic satisfaction those things bring, not because I care about having more hookers/coke/pizza than anyone else.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  I am not sure that the psychology of the hairless chimp makes this fine point when it is thinking about those two things. I think it goes "I see. I want. That thing shiny. That guy have - why I don't have?" But I get your point. It is another trick of the rich to use religion to solidify their wealth. You want what I have? Sin! I want to enclosure more land? Not sin.

fulafel 11y ago

Well, labeling it a vice to be avoided is just application of social pressure to suppress or shun this feature of the human psyche. "Inequality is just fine, feeling unhappy about inequality is a character flaw."

logicchains 11y ago
I'd argue that social pressure to shun this feature of the psyche is ultimately more productive for human happiness. Some people are always going to be luckier/smarter/harder working/more ruthless than others and they'll end up with more in pretty much any social system, so people who accept this inevitability are gonna be a lot happier than people who aren't happy as long as anyone else has more than them.
- fulafel 11y ago
  These are not binary things. Other things being equal, a high inequality society is going to be less happy than a society with moderate inequality. The level of inequality is not inevitable: There's a wide spectrum of (in)equality levels in extant human communities, and it's widely accepted that inequality can be regulated by for example redistributing income or universal coverate of services like education and healthcare.
  - logicchains 11y ago
    I didn't mean to imply it was binary. All other things being equal, a society where people are less envious is going to be happier than a society where people are more envious.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The same is true of sex partners - inequality there will also make society less happy. I've personally observed far more people unhappy that they can't get laid than that they don't make enough money. It's also widely accepted that this inequality can be regulated, for example by social norms discouraging female promiscuity. So I suppose you favor this also, in the interests of not being inconsistent?
    - fulafel 11y ago
      I'd be interested to see studies! Certainly societal structures that result in many people going without sexual partners sound undesireable, and probably rarer than structures where there is high economic inequality? I don't have enough information to be confident that your suggestion would increase happiness. Then there's the value question of happiness vs other virtues (which I also intentionally didn't go into in my inequality vs happiness arguments).

asgard1024 11y ago

> This used to be called "envy", and seen as a vice to be avoided. There are two sides to the coin. What you call "envy" has a very good (evolutionary) reason for its existence. Take a look at ultimatum game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game). If people didn't have capacity to deny unfair splits, even though they seem irrational, then they would be worse off. I posit that denying unfair splits in ultimatum game is envy. Think about it, envy is the reason to do it - the other party doesn't deserve the bigger split, so let's kill it for both! The similar game can be for instance used as a model of worker's strike against a capitalist. (I think in fact most people consider envy a vice only where it's extreme or there are other circumstances that make it unfair. But in general it's just an expression of longing for fairness.)

logicchains 11y ago
>What you call "envy" has a very good (evolutionary) reason for its existence An evolutionary reason isn't _necessarily_ a good reason, unless the definition of good is "helping propagate one's genes". Evolution doesn't select for "living a happy/contented life".
- asgard1024 11y ago
  You're correct (that's why on second thought I put "evolutionary" in parens), but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have. Otherwise you are getting uncomfortably close to a Brave New World of always obedient individuals.
  - logicchains 11y ago
    >but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have This trait is only a subset of what's normally considered "envy". Not all of envy has an apparent use like that. E.g. if Joe feels bad because Neighbour Bob's house is 1030 square feet while Joe's house is only 1020 square feet, this doesn't really help anything, it just makes Joe unnecessarily miserable.