This is nonsense. (The philosophy, not your writing about it. 😅)
More people reduces happiness beyond a certain point, it does not increase it. And I reject the conclusion that “happiness = good.” Happiness is ephemeral and subjective. We could make the whole world “happy” by dumping narcotics into everyone’s water supply, but that would not, I think most of us would agree, be a “good” thing.
The questions beg many questions, which strongly suggests that they are at least largely invalid.
For one thing, the essay begs such questions as that happiness is additive, possibly even quantifiable.
And that unhappiness is like that too.
And that unhappiness is in some sense the negative of happiness, so that if we have a million units of happiness (beatits), we have a million times as much as if we had just one unit, minus the number of units of misery (miserits) coexisting in the population .
And that if we had one person a million times happier (call it one mega-beatit) than a million others with net zero beatits, that would be just as desirable as having a million with just a weeny single beatit each.
And that if we had a population sharing two mega-beatits, plus one mega-miserit, that would be the same as a population sharing one mega-beatits.
Maybe that makes sense to someone, but as a thought experiment, it leaves me with a rapidly rising miserit titre.
I think the question is posed linguistically incorrectly.
Could you imagine such things as "slightly salty salt'' or "incredibly salty salt"?
Salt is always salty, as sugar is always sweet, as the substances. Certainly we can prepare "slightly sweet tea" adding less sugar to our drink, but the substance named "sugar" will not change it's quality because of that. We can cook " incredibly salty soup ", but the substance called "salt" will still remains NaCl with the same molecular weight, temperature of melting and the same
taste. Similarly,could you imagine "slightly dead people", or "incredibly alive people"? So there could not be "slightly happy person" or "incredibly happy one".
I think while happiness as the feeling could be understood subjectively, it is still a bulk one, yet has many edges. Everyone could accept this edge of happiness with which his soul correlates best.
Are you happy while listening how the daisies grow,
Or you'd better prefer sounds of thunderstorm?
Many sounds are mixed in the music of life...
everyone could be pleased who for happiness strive.
I think the question is posed linguistically incorrectly.
Could you imagine such things as "slightly salty salt'' or "incredibly salty salt"?
Salt is always salty, as sugar is always sweet, as the substances. Certainly we can prepare "slightly sweet tea" adding less sugar to our drink, but the substance named "sugar" will not change it's quantity because of that. We can cook " incredibly salty soup ", but the substance called "salt"
will still remains NaCl with the same molecular weight, temperature of melting and the same taste.
I think while happiness as the feeling could be understood personally, it is still a bulk one, yet has many edges. Everyone could accept this edge of happiness with which his soul correlates best.
Are you happy while listening how the daisies grow,
Or you'd better prefer sounds of thunderstorm?
Many sounds are mixed in the music of life...
everyone could be pleased who for happiness strive.
If your organs are failing you, it's your time to go.. In which it could be genetics, or life style, or environment, or mental state or outlook, or combinations thereof. Happiness lies in accepting your lot for in that one may succeed, but not outside of it for one will surely fail. For many people happiness is family companionship, some iteration of gain and loss, real joy is hard to fathom or find, Are not inhibitions rife? This does prevent a person from improving their lot. There is something special about that idea, when divorced from political warp. Pain, if you know why, is not unhappiness - Pain and happiness whilst as dynamics can overlap, are not mutual. Pain is an intrinsic motivation of life itself and is inescapable.. It's pain that is the proof of existence and deserves very special consideration. Consider the pain of a mother giving birth.. What is evil is deliberately inflicting pain on another - The calculated and cruel use of it which is evident everywhere in the world today..
This simply shows what happens when you start from a false premise. The amount of total happiness in a society does not define what is and is not a good society. This sort of delusional utilitarianism is shown to be false most acutely by the transplant problem. If you pause it one healthy person and four people who need a large organ transplant (which kills the donor) and add in five or six people who need non-lethal transplants, it is obvious that a utilitarian should murder the healthy person and transplant the organs into the sick ones.
This is nonsense. (The philosophy, not your writing about it. 😅)
More people reduces happiness beyond a certain point, it does not increase it. And I reject the conclusion that “happiness = good.” Happiness is ephemeral and subjective. We could make the whole world “happy” by dumping narcotics into everyone’s water supply, but that would not, I think most of us would agree, be a “good” thing.
The questions beg many questions, which strongly suggests that they are at least largely invalid.
For one thing, the essay begs such questions as that happiness is additive, possibly even quantifiable.
And that unhappiness is like that too.
And that unhappiness is in some sense the negative of happiness, so that if we have a million units of happiness (beatits), we have a million times as much as if we had just one unit, minus the number of units of misery (miserits) coexisting in the population .
And that if we had one person a million times happier (call it one mega-beatit) than a million others with net zero beatits, that would be just as desirable as having a million with just a weeny single beatit each.
And that if we had a population sharing two mega-beatits, plus one mega-miserit, that would be the same as a population sharing one mega-beatits.
Maybe that makes sense to someone, but as a thought experiment, it leaves me with a rapidly rising miserit titre.
I think the question is posed linguistically incorrectly.
Could you imagine such things as "slightly salty salt'' or "incredibly salty salt"?
Salt is always salty, as sugar is always sweet, as the substances. Certainly we can prepare "slightly sweet tea" adding less sugar to our drink, but the substance named "sugar" will not change it's quality because of that. We can cook " incredibly salty soup ", but the substance called "salt" will still remains NaCl with the same molecular weight, temperature of melting and the same
taste. Similarly,could you imagine "slightly dead people", or "incredibly alive people"? So there could not be "slightly happy person" or "incredibly happy one".
I think while happiness as the feeling could be understood subjectively, it is still a bulk one, yet has many edges. Everyone could accept this edge of happiness with which his soul correlates best.
Are you happy while listening how the daisies grow,
Or you'd better prefer sounds of thunderstorm?
Many sounds are mixed in the music of life...
everyone could be pleased who for happiness strive.
I think the question is posed linguistically incorrectly.
Could you imagine such things as "slightly salty salt'' or "incredibly salty salt"?
Salt is always salty, as sugar is always sweet, as the substances. Certainly we can prepare "slightly sweet tea" adding less sugar to our drink, but the substance named "sugar" will not change it's quantity because of that. We can cook " incredibly salty soup ", but the substance called "salt"
will still remains NaCl with the same molecular weight, temperature of melting and the same taste.
I think while happiness as the feeling could be understood personally, it is still a bulk one, yet has many edges. Everyone could accept this edge of happiness with which his soul correlates best.
Are you happy while listening how the daisies grow,
Or you'd better prefer sounds of thunderstorm?
Many sounds are mixed in the music of life...
everyone could be pleased who for happiness strive.
If your organs are failing you, it's your time to go.. In which it could be genetics, or life style, or environment, or mental state or outlook, or combinations thereof. Happiness lies in accepting your lot for in that one may succeed, but not outside of it for one will surely fail. For many people happiness is family companionship, some iteration of gain and loss, real joy is hard to fathom or find, Are not inhibitions rife? This does prevent a person from improving their lot. There is something special about that idea, when divorced from political warp. Pain, if you know why, is not unhappiness - Pain and happiness whilst as dynamics can overlap, are not mutual. Pain is an intrinsic motivation of life itself and is inescapable.. It's pain that is the proof of existence and deserves very special consideration. Consider the pain of a mother giving birth.. What is evil is deliberately inflicting pain on another - The calculated and cruel use of it which is evident everywhere in the world today..
This simply shows what happens when you start from a false premise. The amount of total happiness in a society does not define what is and is not a good society. This sort of delusional utilitarianism is shown to be false most acutely by the transplant problem. If you pause it one healthy person and four people who need a large organ transplant (which kills the donor) and add in five or six people who need non-lethal transplants, it is obvious that a utilitarian should murder the healthy person and transplant the organs into the sick ones.