Date of publication: 2018-05-06 20:12
These possibilities seem so obvious, and so fundamental to the very idea of measuring a subjective state on a Likert scale, that there should be a standard answer to the possibility that the entire enterprise is worthless. I have looked, but I have not found such an answer. But I am just a layman.
Jumping to a hypothetical wireheading conversation and whether it is morally good or bad not only isn 8217 t useful, it side-steps the entire issue we as humans face: how do we arrive at happiness, biologically? The wireheading conversation in fact simply assumes we already know how to do that.
Sure I 8217 ll back off the strong version of my hypothesis: if this study is correct, then it suggests that the effect I 8217 ve hypothesized isn 8217 t strong enough to overcome the difference in ambient local happiness levels completely.
The model is supposed to work like this: we may fight within our family, but when the Lancasters come, we Yorks stick together. And when the French come, we English stick together. And when the Yellow Peril comes, we Europeans stick together. You don 8217 t get to side with the Yellow Peril to get one up on the Lancasters: that defeats the whole idea.
But there 8217 s nothing wrong with the perfect happiness button. I agree with Aristotle that happiness is completely self-sufficient. If you have (the maximum amount of) it, you don 8217 t need anything else. The reason you need food or shelter is that if you don 8217 t have them it will cause your life to be shorter and more miserable.
The site doesn 8217 t like non-https urls. Try adding the s.
(Oh, I see you 8217 ve got a regular http one down below. Then again, it 8217 s a SSC link. At any rate, I 8217 ve had a change of non-passing url results before, by adding the s.)
But isn 8217 t that the only way to weigh it? All of the pros and cons of any given situation only have meaning relative to other possibilities and the probabilities thereof. If you get a new job, the salary won 8217 t make you happy because you 8217 ve look at your budget, taken the excess, and determined that you can buy more periods of pleasure than you will have boredom or pain, but rather that it is more than what you might otherwise have.
Asking most people to eat an insect or choose the equivalent number of pins would result into a much higher pain through the pins than the actual discomfort when eating that insect.
To put it another way, the tradeoff is not die for my child 8217 s life vs prioritise other more important duties/own life. It 8217 s choose to believe in dying for my child vs choose to believe in higher duties or own skin preservation. And the difference is pretty relevant, because the first scenario is just very unlikely to come up, and even if it does come up, one will 99%+ have the time to revisit it then.
Are you arguing in favour of erecting trade barriers between Colorado and California? If so, why stop at the state level? Why not prevent people from buying property in neighbouring counties? Or neighbouring towns? Or neighbouring streets? Why is the appropriate boundary that which exists between countries or states? What is special about those particular demarcations?
© 2017 Auto&Moto. All rights reserved