2 ms·

The reference to "top-level" goals was about heroin. I agree that it's probably no one's top-level goal to drink bottled water. ;) Reply to edit: Yes, but her

The reference to "top-level" goals was about heroin. I agree that it's probably no one's top-level goal to drink bottled water. ;) Reply to edit: Yes, but heroin is so close to the top-level goal of "pleasure" that we can almost treat them as the same (and certainly for purposes of internet arguments). Even assuming the physical addiction was removed, lots of heroin addicts would go back to it, or to something else if it had a better high for them (I'd guess tasps will eventually reduce demand for drugs quite effectively).

philwelch 18y ago
Heroin comes bundled with lots of pain and expense and dysfunction too, though. It goes against pleasure as soon as you're without it for long enough, and it also goes against other top-level goals many people have. I don't know many heroin addicts but I know smokers, and in my experience, smokers always advise me not to start smoking because it's not worth it. I'd take that as a sign that smoking does not satisfy the top-level goals of the smokers whom I have spoken with on this topic. In any case, addictive drugs are only an analogy. Yet even in this analogy we can see where top-level goals are often incompatible with the means people use to achieve them. I'd also advise you that if your argument rests upon the lemma that heroin use is a rational means to achieve pleasure, you may have a mistake in reasoning somewhere :)
- randallsquared 18y ago
  I'm not suggesting that heroin use is something I'd support, just that I don't think we can say for someone else what their own best interest is, and the fact that people go back to heroin after being clean suggests that it is worth all the downsides, in their value system, if not mine and yours.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    People rarely make fully rational decisions. Addicts succumb, they don't decide to start using again.
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      But "succumb" is merely a pejorative for the decision to indicate that you (we) don't approve. It's not necessarily an inappropriate pejorative, of course. I think there's a case to be made that if you think someone is making a decision irrationally, then either you are asserting that their brain is literally functioning incorrectly, or you aren't taking into account their preferences and goals. If you assume that people rarely fully disclose their preferences and goals due to fear of the effects of such disclosure, it removes a whole lot of irrationality from your view of the world.
      - scott_s 18y ago
        No, I'm using it because I'm imagining myself in their position. My references are milder - such as succumbing to hitting the snooze alarm again, doing less reps in the gym, or eating something that I know is bad for me. I am not claiming people's brains are functioning incorrectly. I am instead claiming that normal brain function is more irrational than most like to believe. We are mostly irrational creatures; it takes significant mental effort for us to make strictly rational decisions. All of the research I've read on the topic supports what I'm saying.

philwelch 18y ago

Heroin comes bundled with lots of pain and expense and dysfunction too, though. It goes against pleasure as soon as you're without it for long enough, and it also goes against other top-level goals many people have. I don't know many heroin addicts but I know smokers, and in my experience, smokers always advise me not to start smoking because it's not worth it. I'd take that as a sign that smoking does not satisfy the top-level goals of the smokers whom I have spoken with on this topic. In any case, addictive drugs are only an analogy. Yet even in this analogy we can see where top-level goals are often incompatible with the means people use to achieve them. I'd also advise you that if your argument rests upon the lemma that heroin use is a rational means to achieve pleasure, you may have a mistake in reasoning somewhere :)

randallsquared 18y ago
I'm not suggesting that heroin use is something I'd support, just that I don't think we can say for someone else what their own best interest is, and the fact that people go back to heroin after being clean suggests that it is worth all the downsides, in their value system, if not mine and yours.
- scott_s 18y ago
  People rarely make fully rational decisions. Addicts succumb, they don't decide to start using again.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    But "succumb" is merely a pejorative for the decision to indicate that you (we) don't approve. It's not necessarily an inappropriate pejorative, of course. I think there's a case to be made that if you think someone is making a decision irrationally, then either you are asserting that their brain is literally functioning incorrectly, or you aren't taking into account their preferences and goals. If you assume that people rarely fully disclose their preferences and goals due to fear of the effects of such disclosure, it removes a whole lot of irrationality from your view of the world.
    - scott_s 18y ago
      No, I'm using it because I'm imagining myself in their position. My references are milder - such as succumbing to hitting the snooze alarm again, doing less reps in the gym, or eating something that I know is bad for me. I am not claiming people's brains are functioning incorrectly. I am instead claiming that normal brain function is more irrational than most like to believe. We are mostly irrational creatures; it takes significant mental effort for us to make strictly rational decisions. All of the research I've read on the topic supports what I'm saying.