5 ms·

When Bhutan is measuring happiness, how do they know what they're measuring is really "happiness"? Why do they think their methods are optimal, or at better t

When Bhutan is measuring happiness, how do they know what they're measuring is really "happiness"? Why do they think their methods are optimal, or at better than some other method, or meaningful at all? Is it just an assumption?

ippisl 17y ago
The measurement is based on the work of some academics. while academics certainly make mistakes , usually academic research and debate is one of the best ways we as a society have to learn about truths.
- mattchew 17y ago
  Academic research can lead to learning truths, but I do not assume that everything that comes from academia is true, or even most of it. I think the modern world has an entirely unwarranted, and somewhat harmful, credulousness when it comes to claims of "studies show that . . .". But that is really beside my main point, which is: 1) To define "happiness" is a process relying on various assumptions. 2) Any attempt to measure that happiness involves further assumptions, in the approach that you use, and assuming the reliability of the results. 3) The idea whatever you're calling "happiness" is something that should be maximized or optimized is also an assumption. It doesn't matter if these assumptions are made by an academic or not. They're assumptions, not facts. They're worthy of challenge. I agree that my notion that individual choice is valuable is an assumption, and not everyone shares it. But you don't seem to see the assumptions inherent in the ideas of the happiness planners.
  - ippisl 17y ago
    Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized? don't you think that happiness/pleasure vs sadness/pain is the main motivating mechanism for human beings(at the biological level) , and that the big reason why individual choice ("freedom") is so important is exactly because lack of freedom caused lack of happiness, so people fought hard to change that? Here's an interesting TED lecture on how to decide moral questions using scientific tools: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_... In short , the lecturer talks about that every value system , is basically a system of rules and guidelines and values , with the purpose of optimizing human well-being. and if we find scientific ways to measure human well being , we can give better , more accurate answers to moral questions. Choose our values better , etc...
    - mattchew 17y ago
      > Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized? If happiness is defined as the feeling one gets from winning a bingo game or watching a hilarious comedian, then nope, I sure don't. If happiness is defined as behaving in the way that causes the largest possible number to appear in the final cell of the National Happiness Spreadsheet of the Ministry of Happiness, then no, I don't care about that either. If happiness is defined as the vague and general satisfaction of human wants--the economist's "utility"--then yes, or at least much closer to yes. But this definition is too vague to lead to any widely shared ideas on how to measure it or pursue it. It does suggest to me that the measuring and optimizing needs to be done by the person experiencing the wants and the satisfying. But I already know not everyone agrees with this. :) * I watched the Harris lecture. A few thoughts: He really didn't make his claim that science answers moral questions. If we assume the moral premise that humans should not suffer, then some other things logically follow, and perhaps science will later tell us some useful conclusions there that we don't know now. I agree that there is enough hard-wired similarity in human nature that some premises like "people should not suffer" can be widely accepted and used as a starting point. Nevertheless, widely shared assumptions is not the same thing as science having "proved" those assumptions. I don't think we have a lot of problem even today with the widely shared assumptions. It's the ones that aren't shared that lead to the conflict. My feeling is Harris wants to be the guy that gets to tell everyone else what science has told us about morality, and then also get to declare the argument over because it isn't his opinion, instead it is "science". It is manipulative, and dishonest, to claim that science will be able to answer moral questions objectively, and then proceed to "prove" this by using examples of behavior that you know in advance your audience will find offensive and outraging. Any preacher or imam can "prove" the will of God using similar tactics. He hints that brain state will eventually provide the new knowledge that we need to answer questions of right and wrong. If I could, I would suggest that he reread Brave New World. There was very little suffering or unhappiness in that world--but I, and I think most people, wouldn't want to live there.

ippisl 17y ago

The measurement is based on the work of some academics. while academics certainly make mistakes , usually academic research and debate is one of the best ways we as a society have to learn about truths.

mattchew 17y ago
Academic research can lead to learning truths, but I do not assume that everything that comes from academia is true, or even most of it. I think the modern world has an entirely unwarranted, and somewhat harmful, credulousness when it comes to claims of "studies show that . . .". But that is really beside my main point, which is: 1) To define "happiness" is a process relying on various assumptions. 2) Any attempt to measure that happiness involves further assumptions, in the approach that you use, and assuming the reliability of the results. 3) The idea whatever you're calling "happiness" is something that should be maximized or optimized is also an assumption. It doesn't matter if these assumptions are made by an academic or not. They're assumptions, not facts. They're worthy of challenge. I agree that my notion that individual choice is valuable is an assumption, and not everyone shares it. But you don't seem to see the assumptions inherent in the ideas of the happiness planners.
- ippisl 17y ago
  Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized? don't you think that happiness/pleasure vs sadness/pain is the main motivating mechanism for human beings(at the biological level) , and that the big reason why individual choice ("freedom") is so important is exactly because lack of freedom caused lack of happiness, so people fought hard to change that? Here's an interesting TED lecture on how to decide moral questions using scientific tools: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_... In short , the lecturer talks about that every value system , is basically a system of rules and guidelines and values , with the purpose of optimizing human well-being. and if we find scientific ways to measure human well being , we can give better , more accurate answers to moral questions. Choose our values better , etc...
  - mattchew 17y ago
    > Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized? If happiness is defined as the feeling one gets from winning a bingo game or watching a hilarious comedian, then nope, I sure don't. If happiness is defined as behaving in the way that causes the largest possible number to appear in the final cell of the National Happiness Spreadsheet of the Ministry of Happiness, then no, I don't care about that either. If happiness is defined as the vague and general satisfaction of human wants--the economist's "utility"--then yes, or at least much closer to yes. But this definition is too vague to lead to any widely shared ideas on how to measure it or pursue it. It does suggest to me that the measuring and optimizing needs to be done by the person experiencing the wants and the satisfying. But I already know not everyone agrees with this. :) * I watched the Harris lecture. A few thoughts: He really didn't make his claim that science answers moral questions. If we assume the moral premise that humans should not suffer, then some other things logically follow, and perhaps science will later tell us some useful conclusions there that we don't know now. I agree that there is enough hard-wired similarity in human nature that some premises like "people should not suffer" can be widely accepted and used as a starting point. Nevertheless, widely shared assumptions is not the same thing as science having "proved" those assumptions. I don't think we have a lot of problem even today with the widely shared assumptions. It's the ones that aren't shared that lead to the conflict. My feeling is Harris wants to be the guy that gets to tell everyone else what science has told us about morality, and then also get to declare the argument over because it isn't his opinion, instead it is "science". It is manipulative, and dishonest, to claim that science will be able to answer moral questions objectively, and then proceed to "prove" this by using examples of behavior that you know in advance your audience will find offensive and outraging. Any preacher or imam can "prove" the will of God using similar tactics. He hints that brain state will eventually provide the new knowledge that we need to answer questions of right and wrong. If I could, I would suggest that he reread Brave New World. There was very little suffering or unhappiness in that world--but I, and I think most people, wouldn't want to live there.