Posted by
voice_of_reason on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:15:05 AM
Let's begin with some semi-serious, semi-philosophical ONE-LINE definitions.
Joy (aka happiness): what you experience when you attain your values
Value: that which you seek to obtain or retain
Virtue: the actions by which you seek to obtain or retain your values
----and now for some analysis----
I'm sure that a suicide bomber feels a perverse kind of 'joy' just before he blows himself up. After all, he has just attained his 'value' which just happened to be the destruction of innocent lives. In his loony-tunes world, his action is 'virtuous', truly deserving of multiple virginal defloration rewards in his benighted paradise. For the record: my sympathies are with the virgins!
So, it comes down to this: happiness depends on your value system. So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue', although it has come to be known as the foundation of a free society.
Values, on the other hand, make all the difference.
Somewhere in all this is a clue to WHY conservatives are losing the MORAL debate.
[whine] Oh fudge, it's just 'too hard' to think about all this serious, buzz-killing stuff. Much easier to slouch off into another night of mindless gluttony and leftist debauchery! [/whine]
=========================
Response to "Sonny" who posted in a TH forum about the differences between JOY and HAPPINESS.
------------------------------------------------
I don't object to your definition: happiness is a transient, ephemeral version of joy - which, you state, is a more lasting emotion.
That is analogous to a statement that an emotion is a 'transient' thought, not always representative of a fully-reasoned, rational, cognitive response. By this definition, an emotion can be subjective (or even wrong). Sort of like an instant 'barometric' response, but one that may have to be replaced by more deliberate thought. People who are more objective in their thought processes (and values) are more likely to experience an objective emotional response - which is consistent with the fully-reasoned thought that follows.
Example: [whine] I really, really want to watch the Superbowl on an expensive 100" plasma HDTV [/whine] - but the tradeoff is that I have to put my kids in a sub-standard public school (and I happen to disagree with the premise of Govt-run education). A subjective emotion may pull me momentarily in the direction of the splendiferous TV; an objective thought soon replaces the emotional pull, but only if I VALUE the education of my kids.
With the definitions understood - let's stipulate (in the context of a discussion about the 'pursuit of happiness') that we're talking about a lasting joy (aka happiness).
No doubt we can ascribe all the ills of leftist ideology to the whiny 'it feels good in the short term, so it must be OK' mentality. Although it does apply in some cases (e.g. drug use, casual sex etc), that is an oversimplification in the larger context.
Why is it an oversimplification? Contrary to popular conservative analysis, mature leftists ARE capable of thinking long-term. Consider a semi-trivial example: leftists are often quite conscious of healthy diet & exercise. If their viewpoint was only one of instant gratification, that would hardly be the case. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that leftists are more health-conscious than their conservative counterparts?
So, if leftists ARE capable of long-term thinking, why does their world-view not reflect that? Thomas Sowell touches on this topic in his "Vision of the Anointed", but he stops short of exposing the 'values' inconsistency. Ayn Rand identifies - and defines - values and virtues better than anyone that I've read. Disclosure: the above one-line definitions are paraphrased versions of hers!
We should also ask ourselves "Do modern-day conservatives espouse a consistent world-view"?
I am interested in identifying the reasons why mature, intelligent people (of both left and right persuasions) choose an inconsistent value system.
Comments, anyone?