Toward an understanding of the tenacity of the politics of others....

[Moonbeam]

Anyone who has posted in P & N for any length of time has surely realized that the opinions of folk who differ with us are irrational but set in concrete. You can show them logically why their belief is irrational but they will cling to it still. In a recent thread, I mentioned that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I will give you here my opinion as to why in the hope it may widen your perspective.

The situation as it stands, in my opinion, is that we have this group of idiots calling that group of idiots, idiots, and all the while deeply convinced that they're right. The other guy is not only an idiot but he is dangerous and bad. Perhaps he should be eliminated. He certainly should be lobotomized before he hurts himself or others.

So how is it, you may ask, in some quieter time, that the others could have become so irrationally insane. How could they possibly cling to what they believe despite the facts of logic and evidence. How is it that people could be so totally stupid as to not see things like me.

What is the core of our, (I really mean your) bigotry and why can't we see or change it? And I mean 'your' because, of course, I am not the bigot. You are.

We will never understand anybody, it seems to me, if we can't figure this out.

So here is what I think.

The human animal is a social being. The process of socialization for children is the acquisition of moral standards and proper social conformity, learning how to have social standing and social respect. We internalize the duality of good and evil according to the wisdom of those who raise us. We attempt to become exemplars according to those external expectations.

We get rewards for being good and punishment for being evil and we learn what is expected in that regard. You could say that our need for love and social approval has co-opted our behavior. We internalize the ethics of those who raise us and gain great self confidence as we become better at being good.

And the better we become the more we risk at failure, the loss of social stature and the flattery we accord ourselves for being good.

In short, we become committed to our ethical system because we are rewarded by success and terrified by failure. We are successful and we are good.

They along comes somebody who thinks differently. Ah the devil has arrived to tempt us to try to knock us off our perch.

So the long and the short of it is this. You can't change the other person's opinion because it is his belief that makes him good and there isn't a normal person on earth who will trade an opinion that makes him good for one that makes him a devil.

So the person on the other side you call an idiot is a person who feels he is doing the good and he is by his own lights. We are all right in our own opinion and we are right because what we believe is good.

This is why you can't tell a bigot anything. What he believes he also believes is good and he will cling to that good as any morally courageous person would. He isn't going to let you turn him into the devil.

The only thing that can change a bigot is the bigot himself if he is very serious and a bit awake. If you can see that the other person is acting out of his own sense of good maybe you can stop demonetizing him. If you can stop demonetizing him maybe you can stop demonetizing yourself if you thought more like him. To have respect that the opinion of others is the outgrowth of their own moral belief, no matter how poorly configured, and not maliciousness and evil, is to open the door to personal growth.

If it's OK for the other to think as he does, it may be OK for you too. The mind that can see that all opinion is really rooted in goodness rather than evil can step back and see that we are all just apes in our own tree, howling at each other that we live in the best tree.
Some of you may seek a jungle rather than a single tree. The mind that realized that all is just opinion can silently behold what is without moral comment arising as thought.

We are all the same and all at odds. Good luck!

 

[MJinZ]

Anyone who has posted in P & N for any length of time has surely realized that the opinions of folk who differ with us are irrational but set in concrete. You can show them logically why their belief is irrational but they will cling to it still. In a recent thread, I mentioned that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I will give you here my opinion as to why in the hope it may widen your perspective.

The situation as it stands, in my opinion, is that we have this group of idiots calling that group of idiots, idiots, and all the while deeply convinced that they're right. The other guy is not only an idiot but he is dangerous and bad. Perhaps he should be eliminated. He certainly should be lobotomized before he hurts himself or others.

So how is it, you may ask, in some quieter time, that the others could have become so irrationally insane. How could they possibly cling to what they believe despite the facts of logic and evidence. How is it that people could be so totally stupid as to not see things like me.

What is the core of our, (I really mean your) bigotry and why can't we see or change it? And I mean 'your' because, of course, I am not the bigot. You are.

We will never understand anybody, it seems to me, if we can't figure this out.

So here is what I think.

The human animal is a social being. The process of socialization for children is the acquisition of moral standards and proper social conformity, learning how to have social standing and social respect. We internalize the duality of good and evil according to the wisdom of those who raise us. We attempt to become exemplars according to those external expectations.

We get rewards for being good and punishment for being evil and we learn what is expected in that regard. You could say that our need for love and social approval has co-opted our behavior. We internalize the ethics of those who raise us and gain great self confidence as we become better at being good.

And the better we become the more we risk at failure, the loss of social stature and the flattery we accord ourselves for being good.

In short, we become committed to our ethical system because we are rewarded by success and terrified by failure. We are successful and we are good.

They along comes somebody who thinks differently. Ah the devil has arrived to tempt us to try to knock us off our perch.

So the long and the short of it is this. You can't change the other person's opinion because it is his belief that makes him good and there isn't a normal person on earth who will trade an opinion that makes him good for one that makes him a devil.

So the person on the other side you call an idiot is a person who feels he is doing the good and he is by his own lights. We are all right in our own opinion and we are right because what we believe is good.

This is why you can't tell a bigot anything. What he believes he also believes is good and he will cling to that good as any morally courageous person would. He isn't going to let you turn him into the devil.

The only thing that can change a bigot is the bigot himself if he is very serious and a bit awake. If you can see that the other person is acting out of his own sense of good maybe you can stop demonetizing him. If you can stop demonetizing him maybe you can stop demonetizing yourself if you thought more like him. To have respect that the opinion of others is the outgrowth of their own moral belief, no matter how poorly configured, and not maliciousness and evil, is to open the door to personal growth.

If it's OK for the other to think as he does, it may be OK for you too. The mind that can see that all opinion is really rooted in goodness rather than evil can step back and see that we are all just apes in our own tree, howling at each other that we live in the best tree.
Some of you may seek a jungle rather than a single tree. The mind that realized that all is just opinion can silently behold what is without moral comment arising as thought.

We are all the same and all at odds. Good luck!

Agreed on the bold.

For the underlined however, some people are not interested in good. They may be interested only in what is natural, pragmatic, self-interested, idealistic, or even evil.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Agreed on the bold.

For the underlined however, some people are not interested in good. They may be interested only in what is natural, pragmatic, self-interested, idealistic, or even evil.

But from the POV in context, "good" is what the person in question believes ought to be done. That it does not line up with external values isn't the point.

Let's take the ever popular Hitler. When he awoke, he didn't sit up and say "I need to do three evil things before breakfast". In his mind he was doing what was necessary however he defined it, and therefore it was for a "greater good". If that weren't the case it would be as if he were possessed and went about doing things he literally did not want to do, but had no physical control of his body.

No, people do "good" when they think to do evil, because in the end that's the "best" choice to make.

If you counter that belief, that makes you the bad guy. Reality need not apply (whatever that is)

M can correct me if I have misinterpreted what he said.

 

[Moonbeam]

But from the POV in context, "good" is what the person in question believes ought to be done. That it does not line up with external values isn't the point.

Let's take the ever popular Hitler. When he awoke, he didn't sit up and say "I need to do three evil things before breakfast". In his mind he was doing what was necessary however he defined it, and therefore it was for a "greater good". If that weren't the case it would be as if he were possessed and went about doing things he literally did not want to do, but had no physical control of his body.

No, people do "good" when they think to do evil, because in the end that's the "best" choice to make.

If you counter that belief, that makes you the bad guy. Reality need not apply (whatever that is)

M can correct me if I have misinterpreted what he said.

I think so. To say, "They may be interested only in what is natural, pragmatic, self-interested, idealistic, or even evil." is really to say this is what those folk think is the good.

 

[MJinZ]

I think so. To say, "They may be interested only in what is natural, pragmatic, self-interested, idealistic, or even evil." is really to say this is what those folk think is the good.

True, but Good and Evil are also distinct and concrete - to an extent. To equate evil acts as someone else's good is not sufficient justification for such a position.

For example: The issue of genocide.

One person thinks XYZ race should be eliminated for arbitrary or non-humanistic reasons.

One person thinks XYZ race has the right to life.

Both may think they are doing "good" but only one is "correct" because the other has a sociopathic thought process that blurs the line between exhibiting natural and proper human empathy and behavior.

Similarly, what is discussed on these forums holds a parallel point. We know those who disagree with us may be holding a similar position that what they are saying is "good" but we know that only side is the more "correct" side in the grand scheme of things.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Anyone who has posted in P & N for any length of time has surely realized that the opinions of folk who differ with us are irrational but set in concrete. You can show them logically why their belief is irrational but they will cling to it still. In a recent thread, I mentioned that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I will give you here my opinion as to why in the hope it may widen your perspective.

The situation as it stands, in my opinion, is that we have this group of idiots calling that group of idiots, idiots, and all the while deeply convinced that they're right. The other guy is not only an idiot but he is dangerous and bad. Perhaps he should be eliminated. He certainly should be lobotomized before he hurts himself or others.

So how is it, you may ask, in some quieter time, that the others could have become so irrationally insane. How could they possibly cling to what they believe despite the facts of logic and evidence. How is it that people could be so totally stupid as to not see things like me.

What is the core of our, (I really mean your) bigotry and why can't we see or change it? And I mean 'your' because, of course, I am not the bigot. You are.

We will never understand anybody, it seems to me, if we can't figure this out.

So here is what I think.

The human animal is a social being. The process of socialization for children is the acquisition of moral standards and proper social conformity, learning how to have social standing and social respect. We internalize the duality of good and evil according to the wisdom of those who raise us. We attempt to become exemplars according to those external expectations.

We get rewards for being good and punishment for being evil and we learn what is expected in that regard. You could say that our need for love and social approval has co-opted our behavior. We internalize the ethics of those who raise us and gain great self confidence as we become better at being good.

And the better we become the more we risk at failure, the loss of social stature and the flattery we accord ourselves for being good.

In short, we become committed to our ethical system because we are rewarded by success and terrified by failure. We are successful and we are good.

They along comes somebody who thinks differently. Ah the devil has arrived to tempt us to try to knock us off our perch.

So the long and the short of it is this. You can't change the other person's opinion because it is his belief that makes him good and there isn't a normal person on earth who will trade an opinion that makes him good for one that makes him a devil.

So the person on the other side you call an idiot is a person who feels he is doing the good and he is by his own lights. We are all right in our own opinion and we are right because what we believe is good.

This is why you can't tell a bigot anything. What he believes he also believes is good and he will cling to that good as any morally courageous person would. He isn't going to let you turn him into the devil.

The only thing that can change a bigot is the bigot himself if he is very serious and a bit awake. If you can see that the other person is acting out of his own sense of good maybe you can stop demonetizing him. If you can stop demonetizing him maybe you can stop demonetizing yourself if you thought more like him. To have respect that the opinion of others is the outgrowth of their own moral belief, no matter how poorly configured, and not maliciousness and evil, is to open the door to personal growth.

If it's OK for the other to think as he does, it may be OK for you too. The mind that can see that all opinion is really rooted in goodness rather than evil can step back and see that we are all just apes in our own tree, howling at each other that we live in the best tree.
Some of you may seek a jungle rather than a single tree. The mind that realized that all is just opinion can silently behold what is without moral comment arising as thought.

We are all the same and all at odds. Good luck!

Opinion is the morning frost that evaporates with the rising Sun.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

True, but Good and Evil are distinct and concrete - to an extent. To equate evil acts as someone else's good is not sufficient justification for such a position.

For example: The issue of genocide.

One person thinks XYZ race should be eliminated for arbitrary or non-humanistic reasons.

One person thinks XYZ race has the right to life.

Both may think they are doing "good" but only one is "correct" because the other has a sociopathic thought process that blurs the line between exhibiting natural and proper human empathy and behavior.

Similarly, what is discussed on these forums holds a parallel point. We know those who disagree with us may be holding a similar position that what they are saying is "good" but we know that only side is the more "correct" side in the grand scheme of things.

The problem is compounded that often there are competing "goods".

One wants freedom and is willing to accept the consequences of that. To him, his right of self determination is most important thing and the good is worth the risk.

Another wants others to be protected and is willing to surrender some liberties for that reason. The good is worth it.

Which is the absolute "right" thing here?

 

[Moonbeam]

True, but Good and Evil are distinct and concrete - to an extent. To equate evil acts as someone else's good is not sufficient justification for such a position.

For example: The issue of genocide.

One person thinks XYZ race should be eliminated for arbitrary or non-humanistic reasons.

One person thinks XYZ race has the right to life.

Both may think they are doing "good" but only one is "correct" because the other has a sociopathic thought process that blurs the line between exhibiting natural and proper human empathy and behavior.

Similarly, what is discussed on these forums holds a parallel point. We know those who disagree with us may be holding a similar position that what they are saying is "good" but we know that only side is the more "correct" side in the grand scheme of things.

So do you think you are going to change the the opinion of these 'sociopaths' by telling them they are evil? They believe it is good that others are exterminated. It would be like killing cockroaches, no?

And what are you're reactions to these folk going to be? Are you going to rant and rave about how evil they are? Are you going to fill your soul with contempt for them when all they are doing is what they think is right?

Don't forget, people probably want to kill you, if they do, because it will protect them from you killing them or destroying what they believe is the good. So are you going to recommend we kill them. How like them do you want to become?

We are them, no?

 

[MJinZ]

The problem is compounded that often there are competing "goods".

One wants freedom and is willing to accept the consequences of that. To him, his right of self determination is most important thing and the good is worth the risk.

Another wants others to be protected and is willing to surrender some liberties for that reason. The good is worth it.

Which is the absolute "right" thing here?

Agreed, but there are always greater goods and lesser goods. Individual freedoms are great, but they are often superceded by the basic safety of the collective - like martial law and war mandates. These are assuming that you are part of a society of course, which too many people forget (they enjoy all the benefits of a society but when the time comes, they don't want to pay the price).

 

[irishScott]

Yep. Think Roger Ebert put it best: "An adult should remain teachable.". Barring the utterly stupid, I always take the opinions of the opposing side with considerable weight. In some cases I've actually come around to their way of thinking. I'm not above conceding a point if the arguments against it are convincing, and have actually done so both here and in OT.

Don't debate to inflate your own ego or impress your will on others. Debate to learn and grow as a person, and hopefully help others to do the same in the process. Anything else is just someone looking for their own gratification, unless you actually happen to be of significant political importance.

 

[MJinZ]

So do you think you are going to change the the opinion of these 'sociopaths' by telling them they are evil? They believe it is good that others are exterminated. It would be like killing cockroaches, no?

And what are you're reactions to these folk going to be? Are you going to rant and rave about how evil they are? Are you going to fill your soul with contempt for them when all they are doing is what they think is right?

Don't forget, people probably want to kill you, if they do, because it will protect them from you killing them or destroying what they believe is the good. So are you going to recommend we kill them. How like them do you want to become?

We are them, no?

Sure, but that's why usually simply calling them out using names are ineffective. It takes a good appeal to both reason and humanity to change their minds, and requires that their minds are open to begin with.

It must be done because that's the only way things can change, short of going "Might is Right". And even then, just look at the short history of the USA. It took a war to "convince" the other side that slavery wasn't the way.
It took a world war to take down Hitler and those who thought the way he did.


Issues today are not so incredibly polarizing that they would result in flat out killing.

It hasn't taken a war for acceptance of Homosexuality in the US, because it is happening, slowly but surely.

We can only hope that we can work the rest of the differences of opinion without bloodshed, and those who can not be changed will die out and be replaced by a more enlightened generation.

 

[MJinZ]

Yep. Think Roger Ebert put it best: "An adult should remain teachable.". Barring the utterly stupid, I always take the opinions of the opposing side with considerable weight. In some cases I've actually come around to their way of thinking. I'm not above conceding a point if the arguments against it are convincing, and have actually done so both here and in OT.

Don't debate to inflate your own ego or impress your will on others. Debate to learn and grow as a person, and hopefully help others to do the same in the process. Anything else is just someone looking for their own gratification, unless you actually happen to be of significant political importance.

Debating often has another purpose - of learning even more about a topic you already know, because you must defend it.

Much like teaching a subject requires a much greater masterful grip on it compared to just being able to ace the exams.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe folk don't want good luck. Maybe they love their misery and conflict.

 

[nyker96]

The problem is compounded that often there are competing "goods".

One wants freedom and is willing to accept the consequences of that. To him, his right of self determination is most important thing and the good is worth the risk.

Another wants others to be protected and is willing to surrender some liberties for that reason. The good is worth it.

Which is the absolute "right" thing here?

I like this post quite a bit, very interesting. I think in these two cases, there is no right thing but there is a "correct" thing to do. I will be lying if I say one side is more "good" than another. They both are "good" in their own minds. Not a single side is "wrong" in my opinion. But just because you believe something is "good" doesn't mean it benefits humanity.

For instance, Hilter opted for genocide as a solution to 'Jewish problem' and was supported by many in Germany. They honestly believed that Jews were a problem and needs to be eliminated. They think this is "good". I think they do believe it from their reference points that this is "good" thing to do. But genocide is such a terrible thing for "humanity" that this is not the "correct" actions to take. because it goes against the very fabric of what makes us human - love and compassion without which we are mere animals.

So back to your two cases, A wants freedom and B wants to protect others. So who is "correct"? My answer is that depends. If A wants freedom for oppressed people, I say that's correct. Oppressing others goes against humanity freedom is good in this case. But if you want more freedom so you can rob your next door neighbor I say that's not 'correct'. harming others goes against basics of humanity. The Bs wants to protect others. Ok, if they are like doctors who relief others from suffering (protecting their patients), I think that is 'correct' but if they want to protect others to the point that they lock 'em up because they are afraid others might get hurt walking on the streets then I think that's not 'correct'.

So I think the answer is regardless of what you believe is "right". Answer lies in if your actions are compassionate and loving or hurtful to humanity.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have here a fine post, nyker, in my opinion. The answer lies in if your actions are compassionate and loving or hurtful to humanity all right but we go right back to the problem I am trying to frame.

Every bigot things he is compassionate and loving. He has to think that because what he does is the good. Everybody knows that compassion and love are good things. Exterminating Jews who aren't human anyway was compassion for the poor Germans who had to live with that contagion in their ranks, no?

I therefore am suggesting that if you scream that others are monsters without compassion and love, it may be that it is you who are devoid of those traits and it is your lack of them that causes you to scream.

There can be no real compassion or love where there is hate for those who lack it, do you see?

So as long as we are in the business of demonetizing others, we are in the business of furthering harm to our neighbor, I think.

Of course there is always the problem that people who lack compassion also see kindness and understanding as a sure sign of weakness.

 

[Ozoned]

Agreed on the bold.

For the underlined however, some people are not interested in good. They may be interested only in what is natural, pragmatic, self-interested, idealistic, or even evil.

That would be like 98% of the population, except for that evil part.. And the good in people, for the most part, has been abated by government.

 

[Soltis]

True, but Good and Evil are also distinct and concrete - to an extent. To equate evil acts as someone else's good is not sufficient justification for such a position.

For example: The issue of genocide.

One person thinks XYZ race should be eliminated for arbitrary or non-humanistic reasons.

One person thinks XYZ race has the right to life.

Both may think they are doing "good" but only one is "correct" because the other has a sociopathic thought process that blurs the line between exhibiting natural and proper human empathy and behavior.

Similarly, what is discussed on these forums holds a parallel point. We know those who disagree with us may be holding a similar position that what they are saying is "good" but we know that only side is the more "correct" side in the grand scheme of things.

Probably the easiest and/or simplest way to tell if a person really believes their action is "good" is to see if they're willing to be on both ends of the deal.

Person A may say its ok to commit genocide but would he still agree if he was of the people being killed? I think most sociopaths and such may think its ok, or "good" to kill, but the moment they're about to be killed suddenly people should be spared.

Person B argues not to genocide, to "live and let live" because he most likely knows that in the theoretical "loop" he can be in any part of it and be accepting.

If you've given up some of your liberties to be protected, and you feel you would be "content"(that may not be the right word tbh) if you were in the position of the protected(who has lost abit of his power for protection), the protector(who has gained some power but also more responsibility), and the "convicted"(as in a person who broke the rules or another entity trying to attack the dynamic - if you were this would you feel you got what you deserved if you get punished for doing "bad"? not so much that you agree but that you accepted the risks going in) then I believe whatever agreement you have made is "good/just"(assuming you are being honest to yourself).

A large part of the animal kingdom has its own agreement of this sort imo in the hunter and hunted. I would assume most animals hunt simply to eat to stay alive and probably wouldn't hunt otherwise, so in that sense when a tiger hunts a deer(lol I know this probably isn't a "technically" correct analogy but forgive me) he's never "upset" with the deer for running away because he knows the deer is trying to survive just like him, and the deer may feel pain being eaten but he doesn't consider the tiger "evil" for eating him because he knows the tiger only has the choice of following the animal kingdom agreement of hunting or to die, in which case the deer would've made the same choice.

NOTE: I am aware some animals develop other things like family bonds and etc from hunting, but I am sure these come somewhat 2nd to the actual getting food, and most likely could be done some other way outside of hunting. I am also aware certain animals have evolved to be more of a carnivore or herbivore etc, but also remember no specific single animal born into the world really has any power over how they came to be as they are as a species, and this thread boils down to the decisions of individuals yes?

 

[BrownTown]

The problem here (as several have pointed out) is the fact that most people really don't give two shits about what is good for anyone else but themselves. It isn't exactly a big shock why one group or another believes a certain thing. I would say only ~10% of people will actually follow their moral compass over their own self interest in any sort of large decision (like say an election). It really doesn't even matter when a persons true set of beliefs are because they are rarely followed.

Personally, I have never had a problem finding a set of moral values, the fact of the matter is that I can find several which are entirely valid. By my logical side I am a Utilitarian and I consider this to be my primary moral compass as to what is right and wrong. However I can just as easily accept my more natural moral compass which is tending towards social Darwinism. In terms of the political parties I would probably best be a Libertarian (although I vote for Republicans 2/3 of the time and Democrats 1/3 of the time) When it really comes to a decision though I look at my different moral compasses and then promptly ignore all of them for my own selfish desires.

 

[Moonbeam]

NOTE: I am aware some animals develop other things like family bonds and etc from hunting, but I am sure these come somewhat 2nd to the actual getting food, and most likely could be done some other way outside of hunting. I am also aware certain animals have evolved to be more of a carnivore or herbivore etc, but also remember no specific single animal born into the world really has any power over how they came to be as they are as a species, and this thread boils down to the decisions of individuals yes?

Off topic, I know, but I can't wait till science makes it possible to photosynthesize sugar and proteins in my skin. You'll be seeing a lot more of me then. A big tap root for water would be nice too.

Your post refers to empathy, a quality that defines us as human, I think, and the thing that is destroyed by self hate. Pretty hard to spare much for the other when you feel yourself to have infinite needs.

 

[Moonbeam]

That would be like 98% of the population, except for that evil part.. And the good in people, for the most part, has been abated by government.

You don't see this as senile mumbling, in other words pure and utter nonsense caught like the plague from others with the same infection. We are the government, remember?

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem here (as several have pointed out) is the fact that most people really don't give two shits about what is good for anyone else but themselves. It isn't exactly a big shock why one group or another believes a certain thing. I would say only ~10% of people will actually follow their moral compass over their own self interest in any sort of large decision (like say an election). It really doesn't even matter when a persons true set of beliefs are because they are rarely followed.

Personally, I have never had a problem finding a set of moral values, the fact of the matter is that I can find several which are entirely valid. By my logical side I am a Utilitarian and I consider this to be my primary moral compass as to what is right and wrong. However I can just as easily accept my more natural moral compass which is tending towards social Darwinism. In terms of the political parties I would probably best be a Libertarian (although I vote for Republicans 2/3 of the time and Democrats 1/3 of the time) When it really comes to a decision though I look at my different moral compasses and then promptly ignore all of them for my own selfish desires.

My answer to this, (what do you think?) is that what is in my interest, what would be best for me in this world, is what is in your interest. If you are all fucked up and I have everything including enormous mental health, you may stab me in the back when I sleep because you're full of anger and rage. I believe that happiness is something that when you have it, I can too. So when I help you, even though I also have needs, I hasten the day when everybody can enjoy this earth. In short, I may just be a lot more self interested than you are. Maybe you should learn to be more selfish, eh?

 

[BrownTown]

My answer to this, (what do you think?) is that what is in my interest, what would be best for me in this world, is what is in your interest. If you are all fucked up and I have everything including enormous mental health, you may stab me in the back when I sleep because you're full of anger and rage. I believe that happiness is something that when you have it, I can too. So when I help you, even though I also have needs, I hasten the day when everybody can enjoy this earth. In short, I may just be a lot more self interested than you are. Maybe you should learn to be more selfish, eh?

A person happiness is based on two things:

- What they have RELATIVE to others
- The rate at which what they have RELATIVE to others is changing

Happiness isn't necessarily a zero sum game, but in alot of ways it plays like one. If my life improves and so does yours I will be happier and so will you. However if my life improves the same amount but yours gets worse then I will be much happier than what I would have been if both of our lives had improved. I don't like that fact about human nature any more than you do, but when it comes to happiness taking away from others is jsut as good as giving to yourself. Expecting a person to make their life less happy just to make someone happier is a nice dream, but in the real world (where all of us but Moonbeam live) it just doesn't happen very often.

 

[nonlnear]

A person happiness is based on two things:

- What they have RELATIVE to others
- The rate at which what they have RELATIVE to others is changing

I reject this claim - at least as a rule. It does seem to be true of many people, but there are some who have managed to rid their happiness of the shackles of marketing.

but when it comes to happiness taking away from others is jsut as good as giving to yourself.

I sense much self-loathing.

 

[Soltis]

A person happiness is based on two things:

- What they have RELATIVE to others
- The rate at which what they have RELATIVE to others is changing

Happiness isn't necessarily a zero sum game, but in alot of ways it plays like one. If my life improves and so does yours I will be happier and so will you. However if my life improves the same amount but yours gets worse then I will be much happier than what I would have been if both of our lives had improved. I don't like that fact about human nature any more than you do, but when it comes to happiness taking away from others is jsut as good as giving to yourself. Expecting a person to make their life less happy just to make someone happier is a nice dream, but in the real world (where all of us but Moonbeam live) it just doesn't happen very often.

I can't help but think when you say this you mean in the sense that when your life improves while others lives get worse you tend to appreciate it more. If someone's life gets worse while mine gets better, assuming that person didn't bring it upon himself with negative actions, I usually wouldn't feel as happy or maybe even abit sad about what was happening, although I will say I'm sure I would be more *thankful* for my own situation/happiness.

It would be like if 10 people had to fight 10 different bears and each person that wins their fight gets a million dollars. If everybody survived and got their own million I'd be alot happier than if 1 or 3 or everyone except me died and I was the only one to get my million, although in the latter situation I would be alot more humble about the victory and probably everytime I see the money I would think of the others and really be appreciative of how lucky I was to survive.

 

[ebaycj]

I reject this claim - at least as a rule. It does seem to be true of many people, but there are some who have managed to rid their happiness of the shackles of marketing.I sense much self-loathing.

Not just marketing (which is bad in and of itself), but also the downfall of others. BrownTown_Self_Loathing++;
See below:

A person happiness is based on two things:

- What they have RELATIVE to others
- The rate at which what they have RELATIVE to others is changing

Happiness isn't necessarily a zero sum game, but in alot of ways it plays like one. If my life improves and so does yours I will be happier and so will you. However if my life improves the same amount but yours gets worse then I will be much happier than what I would have been if both of our lives had improved. I don't like that fact about human nature any more than you do, but when it comes to happiness taking away from others is jsut as good as giving to yourself. Expecting a person to make their life less happy just to make someone happier is a nice dream, but in the real world (where all of us but Moonbeam live) it just doesn't happen very often.

Does it really make you less happy if the poor people down the street buy a bigger/better/newer TV than you? What about if they won the PowerBall (which we all know is a tax on stupidity), would you be less happy then? If so, that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Try evaluating your happiness without comparing yourself to others AT ALL. That's where true happiness lies.