The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society

[nimda]

1. As a human, my purpose in life is the pursuit of happiness. I attempt to make the decisions which will result in the most happiness for myself.
2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts.
3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.
4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.
5. If it is possible to torture me in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, then I volunteer. Ironically, however, I would be happy with myself for doing such a noble deed and making so many other people happy. Thus, I would feel physical pain, but I might still be happy. The torture would "fail" due to empathy.
6. So there. The meaning of life, and the reason that there is no "one true method" of society, be it AnCap or StatSoc -- the one which makes people the most happy should be used. Here in 'murica, maybe AnCap would make people happiest; maybe not.
7. Please pass another joint

[myrkul]

I approve of this message.

Let me list the factors of the society that would give me the most happiness (unabashedly cribbed from the Shire Society Declaration):

FIRST, each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent;

SECOND, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;

THIRD, each individual has the inalienable right of self-defense against the initiation of force;

FOURTH, explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid;

FIFTH, rights are neither collective nor additive in character, and no group can possess rights in excess of those belonging to its individual members;

[nimda]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

[nimda]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

[organofcorti]

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

[nimda]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

Makes the sum of happiness the greatest. Most people most happy.

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

lolok

[bb113]

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

Sounds like early 20th century france. It would end up with the "artists" somehow getting away with drinking absinthe all day as they ride bikes around and shoot guns at the dirt and such. The vineries will not put up with that.

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

Makes the sum of happiness the greatest. Most people most happy.

What about empathy? Would not those people who are being forced be unhappy, causing those who are not being forced to feel bad for them? "Feeling bad for" is not happiness.

[nimda]

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

[myrkul]

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

Well, this is true, But then, it was reciprocal.

Your proposed perfect society up there stipulates universal empathy.
"2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts."
Reconcile that with forcing people to be unhappy to pay for your happiness.

[nimda]

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

Well, this is true, But then, it was reciprocal.

Also true. In a world of absolutes where neither party had any empathy for the other, the more perfect society is the one in which the proletariat are happy, simply because there are more of them. A thousand happy workers with no empathy for the unhappy Monseigneur constitutes more total happiness than a happy Monseigneur and a thousand unhappy workers. The Monseigneur's happiness is not worth more than that of a single worker.

Your proposed perfect society up there stipulates universal empathy.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.

"2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts."
Reconcile that with forcing people to be unhappy to pay for your happiness.

Again, empathy is not universal. I have more empathy for family and friends than some random guy, and more for aforementioned random guy than for the random guy who makes a fortune by forcing child labor on cheap shoes. In fact, empathy is largely malleable; the audience tends to empathize with the protagonist of a story even when the protagonist is a criminal. Conversely, the audience scorns he who is portrayed in a negative light. The audience sometimes even cheers for the torturing of an oppressive dictator, etc.

So assuming I live in a cardboard box, I probably couldn't give two shits about Bill Gates' 20 billion extorted loss if that loss gets me an apartment and some Cabernet Sauvignon.

Oh boy, France is quite the hot topic society wise

[myrkul]

4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.

These statements do not compute.

Also, if society is aiming for the most people, the most happy, then I contend that allowing them all to guide their own lives (yes, and even choose leaders for themselves) would result in the most happiness for all.

[benjamindees]

So your argument is that if we eliminate empathy, torture is good?

[nimda]

4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is usually not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.

These statements do not compute.

Fixed

Also, if society is aiming for the most people, the most happy, then I contend that allowing them all to guide their own lives (yes, and even choose leaders for themselves) would result in the most happiness for all.

That may be the case here, but it may not always be the case in every place.

So your argument is that if we eliminate empathy, torture is good?

lolok
First off, eliminating empathy entirely is probably not possible.
Second, torture doesn't always bring people happiness.
However, if torturing me for the rest of my life would make you and one other person happy for the rest of your lives, then I volunteer.

[myrkul]

However, if torturing me for the rest of my life would make you and one other person happy for the rest of your lives, then I volunteer.

The question is, if torturing me would bring you and one other person happiness for the rest of your lives, would you "volunteer" me?

[nimda]

Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.

[myrkul]

Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.

Then why do all this complicated math? Why not simply focus on increasing your own, and possibly others' happiness, so long as doing so does not reduce anyone's happiness? If all anyone adds to the equation is positives, then the sum is always positive.

[nimda]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society. The meaning of life is happiness; individuals seek it. I personally will seek the path of life which leads to my being the most happy. The goal of a perfect society is also most happiness; thus, the socioeconomic systems which make people the happiest are the ones which should be chosen. Denmark and Norway are doing a goddamn fine job of it.