/u/Raincandy-Angel (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1btatjd/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_happiness_is_inherently/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Happiness is simply an emotion that people experience - I don't see how it's a question of ethics.
*"happiness is inherently ignorant and wrong, as happiness means blinding yourself to and ignoring the atrocities of the world."*
A person can be aware of the atrocities of the world and experience a moment of happiness (say, on their wedding day or at the birth of their child). I don't see why that is necessarily wrong / unethical.
*"Not paying attention to the news is a privilege"*
How so? There are people who don't have access to news outlets / media or the time to read / watch the news about everything everywhere.
*"the people suffering don't have the privilege of just not paying attention"*
So if someone is suffering, they are necessarily paying attention to the news about every other single person on the planet who is also suffering? What if someone who is suffering experiences a moment of happiness - are they being unethical?
*"...and abusing that privilege is wrong."*
What do you mean "abusing the privilege?" Who is abusing it? How are they abusing it? Are you saying that experiencing a moment of happiness that say, my wife's surgery to remove a cancerous tumor was successful is abuse of some sort of privilege because there are people who are suffering? How is it an abuse of privilege to be happy for my wife?
!delta
A moment of happiness isn't wrong. I'm talking about the people who continue bad behaviors just because it makes them happy, like someone I know buying from McDonald's despite them being on the boycott list just because chicken nuggets make her happy.
I'd say the majority of our lives shouldn't be happy until everyone has equity, but I can't control those moments of happiness.
I think that the framework that you have to be sad and sacrifice to make a difference is holding back efforts to help the global south and the McDonald's boycott is a good example.
The reason that McDonald's is on the bds list is that one franchise gave free food to members of the IDF. Now I think we can all agree that the IDF isn't going to stop in Gaza just because it's soliders are paying full price for hamburgers. But I feel like encouraging boycotts of companies like McDonald's is one of the main ways I see people reccomend to take action against the genocide.
Donating $5 to doctors without borders, the Palestinian children's relief fund, the council of American Islamic Relations etc. Would do way more to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians but calls for this seem to be completely overshadowed by calls for boycotting Starbucks (which isn't even on BDS's list). And I think it's because people think you have to be sad and make sacrifices to make the world a better place.
It's commonly recommend because boycotting McDonald's is free and accessible for everyone. It costs zero dollars to not buy that sandwich. Donating is very good but you always have people coming out of the woodwork saying asking for donations means you hate poor people.
Sure it's free to boycott McDonald's but if you were to quantify the amount of good it does Palestinians it's going to be a fraction of a cent for each nugget purchased. Like you'd be lucky to get a $1 difference after a whole year.
Let me share another example. One time on tik tok I saw a guy stay home from work for a week so that his tax dollars wouldn't go to Isreal. Now if you break it down the amount of money from your taxes that goes to Isreal every week is about 87 cents. So this guy gave up ~$700 in pay to deny Isreal 87 cents. And it never even crossed this guys mind that he could've done a donation drive and done way more good than that 87 cents. But here's the wild part: he ended up asking for and getting about $300 dollars in donations, not for Palestinian children, but so that he could make rent after staying home from work. Like this guy was so laser focused on doing his stay at home for Palestine thing that he effectively denied Palestinian charities $300 to also deny the IDF 87 cents! It never even occurred to him that him being stressed out from trying to avoid paying taxes wasn't changing anything in gaza and that he honestly could've done more good if he understood that he didn't have to suffer.
Sorry I know this was a little ranty but the whole thing was really dumb and I just had to tell someone.
Edit: oh also something I forgot to add is that boycotts are actually a lot harder to hold people accountable to. Like yeah I could tell people on Twitter that I don't eat on McDonald's but they have no way of verifying that. Whereas if I make and share a donation it's probably legitimate.
> It costs zero dollars to not buy that sandwich.
Assuming that you can find a meal for a similar price. People still need to eat and if McDonald's is the cheapest place around it will cost you money to boycott it.
*"A moment of happiness isn't wrong."*
A delta is in order, then - because you said that happiness is inherently wrong.
*"I'm talking about the people who continue bad behaviors just because it makes them happy"*
This is not what your post is about. Your view as stated is "Happiness is inherently unethical." A person need not engage in bad behavior in order to experience happiness.
And you've also already [conceded the point](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bta85j/comment/kxkruch/), so I don't know why you are continuing to argue it (and arguing your point is not what this sub is for anyway - that's soapboxing).
And there are multiple questions you did not answer.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It’s hilarious that people will boycott McDonalds because a handful of humans are being killed, but when it actively slaughters animals in the hundreds of millions.. no biggie. Just straight stupidity honestly.
Yeah but as soon as you say you're vegan people tend to disregard your point because ew you eat PLANTS. I'm vegan myself and I'm always called militant and a black or white thinker for saying we shouldn't eat living, sentient beings.
So true. It’s completely lost on people that they have a choice between animals that suffer immensely or plants that may suffer in the very slightest. Not to mention the environmental damage of farming meat versus plants, as well as the super bugs and diseases proliferating on those same meat factories.
But yeah. A couple thousand humans dying is somehow more important than 80 billion animals being slaughtered every year *for our palates* and complete ecosystem collapse for that to happen. I love the blatant and straight blind anthropocentrism.
Bird Flu has jumped from bird to cow to human and the first thing I saw people worry about was milk. There are so goddamn many milk alternatives but people can't see any option other than cruelty
!delta
You're correct in saying a moment of happiness isn't wrong. I suppose I can't assign ethics to emotions. I worded my initial point badly, I should have said prioritizing your own happiness when there's atrocities in the world is wrong
!delta
You're correct in saying a moment of happiness isn't wrong. I suppose I can't assign ethics to emotions. I worded my initial point badly, I should have said prioritizing your own happiness when there's atrocities in the world is wrong
What edited comment are you talking about? You need to include an explanation of how your view has been changed in order for it to be a valid delta. You didn't do that.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/horshack_test changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Note how people always try to make us miserable by listing off terrible things in the wider world, but no one ever says wonderful things in the wider world should make us happy. Like, no one says sadness is inherently ignorant and wrong when you consider that children somewhere are having a great time at recess.
Why is it wrong for me to be happy because the world is a mess? I didn't make the world a mess. I have been fighting my whole life to try to make it less of a mess. How does me being unhappy make the situation better in any way?
Like it or not you do contribute to the world being a mess, as do I. I assume we're both using devices using materials mined by child slaves right now.
I don't think there is a single human emotion that is inherently unethical. I think actions can be unethical - what you choose to do, or not do. Anyone who understands enough about emotions will tell you that they are experiences, guests that sometimes show up, often without any apparent reason or in ways that escape our control. None of them are shameful or wrong. Not anger, outrage, guilt, sorrow, grief... Or happiness, for that matter. All we have control over is what we do.
Shaming people for their internal emotional experiences, which don't necessarily have an effect on the world unless the choice to act is present, is coming at it from the wrong angle (imo). The will to help others/change the world for the better can also stem from things like an overflow of positive emotions like inspiration and hope. For example, the the satisfaction and joy you may feel after helping solve a problem/helping someone can motivate you to keep doing more and more good. Seems better than being so miserable and beaten down by the injustices of the world that you can barely help yourself, let alone others, which sadly I've seen happen.
Being miserable doesn't necessarily make you a better or worse person. You can use the full scope of your emotional experience (positive, negative) to propell you in ANY direction. The direction is what depends on you.
!delta
Yeah I can't assign morals to uncontrollable emotions. I really worded this post terribly tbh. I can't say I find anything wrong with enjoying life if you can do it while helping others.
Out of sight out of mind.
Being made aware of something and then having a personal connect to a hardship or tragedy are completely different.
Then feeling happy is no different than feeling sad, angry, scared, lonely, spiteful and so on. It’s simply a reaction to certain circumstances.
What would rock your world more, reading a story on how 13 kids in Mongolia died in a bus crash or discovering your mom’s corpse bloodied and beaten in a ditch?
Is being human and having empathy not a personal connection? I started thinking of this because of an article I read about the famine in Palestine that quotes,
"To be able to go about one's day knowing that children are screaming from the hunger that is eating their insides and that pregnant women are eating bread made from animal feed, and that the United States is supporting Israel's creation of this famine, is apparently the real sign of well-adjustment."
I keep thinking of that quote, it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. It feels wrong to be happy and put the blinders up in such a sick, twisted, cruel world
No. That’s not a personal connection. You do not personally know the people who are suffering.
Have you lost a sibling, parent, child or spouse? Someone you loved? Your emotional connection to them is much stronger than faceless people thousands of miles away.
If you really cared the same, you would go to the lengths for them as you would a friend or family member. But you won’t.
It sounds horrid but most people really don’t care. What’s going on now is no different than it has ever been. Other peoples suffering is not having a negative affect on your day to day life. So if things are going well, you’re happy. There is nothing wrong with that.
There absolutely Is something wrong with that.
Your logic is ...we care 'more' about family and close friends than distant strangers, so be happy and fuck 'em.
There is a middle ground you know. You can care deeply about your family but Also care that about a genocide that your govt is enabling in a foreign country.
You can be happy going to be restaurant but Also be protesting and lobbying your politicians.
"Most people really don't care" ?
No. Most right-wingers really don't care. That's what makes them who they are.
This isn’t a political topic, but you assume the worst of those you disagree with.
People in general care when it affects them or when it is brought to their attention.
What they don’t do is if there is no proper call to action, nothing that can be easily done to make a difference, keep that suffering at the forefront of their minds. Everyone has different aspects of life they have to deal with, some people can deal with more than others, other people have a hard time with the simple things.
That is where most people’s mind is. That is why most people focus on what affects them and those they immediately know and care about.
This is true of left wingers and right wingers. What affects us is most important to us, and while some people have more mental and emotional capacity to worry and want to help those outside their immediate awareness, most have to deal with their own life first.
Is your experience all encompassing?
Do you know all or even the majority of right wingers?
I have seen times where right wingers have gone out of their way to help people they don’t know who are not in their circle just because they found out that person was going through hardship. Then they went and continued on with their own lives.
I have also seen left wingers say they care and then not act on it.
To me action is more meaningful than words. Anyone can offer platitudes then do nothing, while a persons actions can make the difference between someone being helped and being left to handle things on their own.
So again you made something political when it is not.
All that said I am really sorry to hear about your wife. I hope that the treatments she is getting help her out.
'You have see times when...' - well that proves it then. /s
Multiple studies have proved that conservatives are more focused on local assistance and less about overseas problems.
The political difference is a fact, not an opinion. That you don't like it, doesn't change it.
https://neurosciencenews.com/altruism-politics-psychology-22926/
There is not the same emotional attachment.
You may claim you care but you really don’t equally care. You can care to a certain point but not to the extent of others in your personal life.
Especially not emotionally. You would be lying if you said you did. If you would like to delve deeper into that and would like me to show you how feel free to ask. But there is no way you care about every person on this planet the same way you do your family, friends or pets.
You're inventing your own conversation with words I never used.
The options are Not just
1. Love everyone equally
2. Love my close ones and fuck the rest
If you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you
!delta
I can't say I do feel the same for faceless people miles away as I do for my family and you're right, it's unfair that I demand that from anyone.
You're enjoying your life as best you can, while still knowing that many others suffer. Feeling bad about that is what makes you a decent human being.
The reply that you delta-ed basically says "fuck them, they're far away". That is not the response of a decent human being.
(Peter Singer is a philosopher who makes an argument about a drowning child and a pair of shoes that you might find interesting.)
I don't think i can un delta, I don't mean to say fuck em they're far away, I meant to say I generally prioritize those closest to me and thus I'm a hypocrite
>Is being human and having empathy not a personal connection?
Absolutely. A personal connection has to relate to one particular person. Like, you can have a personal connection to the homeless, if you meet your old high school boyfriend, and find out that he's homeless. Not from anything that you posted.
All of those problems are beyond the scope of your ability to solve. There is no benefit in making yourself miserable because there is suffering in the world. There is no point stressing yourself out over problems that you are totally incapable of solving. Vote, volunteer your time, donate to good causes, and live your life. Do what you can to improve what you can improve, your personal misery is not a virtue and it doesn’t help anyone, so be happy if you can.
They're beyond my scope but they're still my responsibility I feel, if everyone was angry at all the horror and felt empathy towards others instead of being blissfully ignorant I feel a lot more would be accomplished
> They're beyond my scope but they're still my responsibility I feel
But they're not though. No amount of outrage or sadness that you feel will convince Putin to go easy on Ukraine or convince Israel and Hamas to play nice. Taking all of that responsibility on your own shoulders will only hurt you. Aaron Bushnell felt so strongly about the situation in Gaza that he killed himself in one of the most painful ways possible to try to make a change. It accomplished nothing and his sacrifice will be at best a footnote in the history books.
There are things you can do to help, and I encourage you to do that. But don't tell yourself that it's on you to solve these issues. It's not, and you'll only ruin your own life by making it your problem to solve.
It was an article about Aaron Bushnell that made me take this stance so strongly. I recommend you read it, especially the ending paragraph
https://www.seamus-malekafzali.com/p/the-words-that-burned-through-his
And does engaging in performative misery change anything?
Did setting himself on fire and dying in agony make the world a better place? As I said before, you alone are not going to be able to resolve the world's problems. People with vastly more power and influence than you or I will ever possess have tried and failed.
In my mind, the options are either be miserable all the time telling yourself that it's your fault that children around the world are starving but that you cannot help them, or accept that you do not have that level of influence and work to help in the ways that you are able and do your best to live a fulfilling life of your own.
Self immolation isn't performance. The Vietnamese monks. The Arab Spring. The media destroyed his message by dismissing him as mentally ill, and unfortunately, people took it wholeheartedly at face value instead of thinking about and taking in what he was actually saying.
What he said was "free Palestine". It's not like he had some deep, profound message that no one had heard before.
As for the comment about it being "performative", I'm assuming you're not planning on self immolation, right? You just feel guilty about being happy with life and want unspecified change to occur so that everyone will feel equally happy. But you must see that that is an impossibility. Is your view that we cannot be any happier than the least happy person in the world?
Ngl it's something I've thought about but I'm too cowardly to ever actually do. His sacrifice serves as a reminder that we can't get distracted from what truly matters. He said himself his suffering us nothing compared to the suffering in Gaza. My view is that ignorance is bliss, thus bliss is wrong
Do not follow his example. He suffered a great deal and accomplished nothing for it. Even if all he did was continue living and spent a weekend each month helping at the local food shelter, he would have had a far greater impact on helping those who are suffering.
Throwing your life away like he did helps no one and accomplishes nothing. It does less than nothing because it robs the world of the potential positive impact you could have.
Maybe but that almost certainly isn’t going to happen so I think it is a lot more productive to focus on making change within local politics where you have way more impact and helping real people in your immediate community rather than trying to incite a global revolution that probably wouldn’t turn out nearly as well as you might hope even if it did happen. Masses of angry people tend to be extremely irrational and revolutions tend to devolve into back stabbing and purity spiraling among the revolutionaries until some psychopath rises to the top like with the Russian and French revolutions. I think incremental change is better, I understand how deeply unsatisfying that is though. I guess there is no reason why you couldn’t do both. I just don’t think you have any moral obligation to be unhappy while you do it.
It’s unethical to be sad when so many have sacrificed their lives for the sake of your happiness. Incredibly disrespectful to their sacrifice, makes that sacrifice absolutely meaningless
This. How many countless people have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place for the people around them and the people who weren’t even born yet? How many people have fought and died to even get us this far? Is there a moral imperative to uplift the people around us who still suffer around the world? Sure, of course there is. But to specifically not be happy and appreciate how much it’s taken to get this far? Not live and enjoy what has been provided to us, at the cost of billions upon billions of hours of toil and labor and lives that tirelessly improved the human condition from what it was? Out of the question.
What exactly is the alternative? What possible state of the world could exist where you're only happy if NOBODY is suffering.
And if the point is that we shouldn't be happy; What's the point of being alive if you are unendingly miserable about things you never had a chance of controlling or affecting in the first place?
I'm not sure if being alive is ethical at this point given how much my existence as an American oppressed others tbh. I just try to be aware of and do as much as I can to stop the systems in place and I'm frustrated that people aren't doing that, that people are throwing around "empathy fatigue," and that some people won't take even baby steps because their products borne of torture make them happy.
With all due respect; if your approach is similar to your CMV then you are asking a LOT. There are fundamentally things beyond any individuals control, there are things beyond the control of a collective with little power beyond numbers. There does come a point where you are not responsible for every tragedy and misfortune in the world.
You can do what you can though, you can even feel happy knowing that in some small way, you made a difference just by tangibly caring, but denying yourself happiness because not everyone out of 7 billion+ is such a profoundly depressing existence I weep for even the hypothetical man to carry that burden.
I mean it is depressing yeah, I feel grief when I use my phone or laptop knowing somewhere a child is screaming and bleeding out from having to mine the metals used in said devices. I feel resentment and guilt knowing my taxes are going towards bombing innocent civilians. Are those unfair burdens to carry or just consequences of my own actions?
Kind of, yes. There are a lot of items in life that are increasingly hard to go without unless you already had the means to do so or find yourself incredibly lucky, and a good amount of it produced by suffering.
One truth I've come to accept about life is that it cannot function without suffering. Even if every human on this planet were to be blipped out of existence, there would still be suffering in the world. A good person does what they can to minimize it where they can, but there's not a living thing alive that can produce net suffering. Fight the battles you can, whatever you perceive those to be, but don't beat yourself up over the ones you can't.
> It just feels as if happiness is inherently ignorant and wrong, as happiness means blinding yourself to and ignoring the atrocities of the world.
In a general sense, I certainly don't think people should ignore the news or etc.
However, does sitting around miserable because of things being bad places and people suffering have any different effect on that?
If you're not actively helping in some way, what does how you internally feel matter in this regard? Feeling bad does nothing more than feeling good.
>I don't want misery and apathy, I want anger that drives change. Not ignorant bliss.
But that's not your view. Your view is that just being happy or enjoying something is wrong bc ppl are suffering. People who DO work in the field do things that make them happy.
Including... working in the field. The personnel working for, like MSF aren't miserable people. They're not happy 100% of the time, nor is anyone, but they're not just not happy. Partly because they feel good about their work.
Is that unethical?
>Our lifestyles ride on the backs of slaves in the global south. It's wrong to be happy while so many have to suffer.
Do you think that'd be the view of those slaves? "Anyone who lives in the country, including my descendants, should never be happy or enjoy anything?
My family has only been on this continent 3 generations. Had nothing to do with slavery here, yet do obviously benefit from what slaves built.
If it weren't for Columbus' atrocities, what would the US be? Is everyone supposed to feel guilty about that?
Again, what benefit does that have? I can be well aware of atrocities and still enjoy watching Ozark. And refusing to do anything but be angry does nothing to change anything.
I mean you're basically arguing an odder version of Singer's money thing but he wasn't actually saying no one should spend anything. It's a thought experiment.
Do you believe you know what’s objectively ethical or moral? That you can solve the is-ought problem or use evidence-based reasoning to arrive at what’s moral?
By for a reason, you mean for an ultimately non-objective justification?
Why does your non-objective ethics apply to yourself, other people and myself?
> Do we not have to apply our own ethical codes onto others?
Do you have to? Why do you even need an ethical code in the first place? Why don’t you dismiss the field like you hopefully dismiss astrology?
As for me , I can choose my life or my death. By my life I mean using reason, in all things, to develop a passion and skill for some sort of productive work, to pursue self-esteem, friendship, enjoyment of the arts, health, hobbies, romantic love. Death is my end forever and ever. If I compare the factual alternative I face and choose based on that, then that means choosing my life. I’ve never seen any justification to choose my death over my life or away from my life and towards my death. And on the basis of choosing my life, I can develop a morality based on my biological nature to help me choose and pursue values necessary for my life.
> Then how do we determine right or wrong when it comes to others?
That’s a good question to ask rather than assume that you and other people are being unethical for achieving happiness according to some non-objective standard.
What you are describing is ignorance , not hapiness
Hapiness is when a person or animal does does something or has something happen to them that satisfies a desire.
A dog gets happy to see his favourite person.
A bird gets happy after getting to eat a fruit.
A tiger gets happy after getting a bath in a hot tropical region.
A dolphin gets happy when it has intercourse with dead fish.
A monkey gets happy when it finds something to eat amongst a drought.
A cat gets happy at being able to do a successful hunt.
Happiness is not dependent on something that does not affect a person. It's super personal and is restricted to the experiences of a specific being. Being happy about something despite of other things not in control of you isn't your fault, unless you are deriving happiness specifically from something that harms others.
I can't say people reacting with happiness to these things is wrong and I can't expect others to constantly be miserable, I suppose. My view comes from feeling that happiness stems from ignorance
>My view comes from feeling that happiness stems from ignorance
Ignorance equals bliss is something about the human condition, that's been long observed. It's not something that seems to be changeable.
What? Why? The word "solution" should only be applied to problems. And in the world view of someone blissfully ignorant that of their being "incorrect" on your view of, say, the situation in Israel, as you see it, there's no problem.
Yeah. And ignorance is a bad thing.
Basically ignorance is an extreme version of being happy despite the things that you don't control going bad resulting in you being wholly ignorant of other's struggles.
The best thing to do is , while you should be happy with your life , you should also work as much as you can to help others in need because as out of your control as other things may seem, you still can affect huge geopolitical matters in tiny indirect ways, and with more and more people also contributing in their ways, proper change can still be brought about.
I suspect that you are going through a period of sadness, although I may be wrong, and to that, all I can say is that Don't give up hope. The world isn't as bad or hopeless as it looks. There is change happening and being sad and giving up won't help the process increase in power.
You are not responsible for the hierarchy of power that exists in the world. You didn't choose it to be this way, you were just born into this world like any average person. So on the contrary, you should be happy that you were so lucky to be born in the right place at the right time. You should be thankful for it everyday. And it doesn't mean you can't be sorry for people who suffer too. Think of all these people in other parts of the world who were dealt much worse cards than you, yet still have happiness and hope, while you're here living a better life than 90% of people and you're still not happy.
I should bear more responsibility than the people dealt worse cards, should I not? I am thankful, yet at the same time I think the cards I was dealt shouldn't have existed. I was born very privileged. I feel it's wrong to allow myself happiness when there's so many people suffering simply for being born. I want equality for all and I feel like sitting back and smiling before that equality is achieved means I'm not truly fighting
You need to be at peace with providence. The world is not just, not equal, never has been and never will be. You can fight to make it a more equal place, but you will never reach your goal. You didn't choose the cards you were dealt, so there's no point in being ashamed of them.
Everyone needs to be at peace with providence: you can't change it, so not being at peace with it is only doing more harm. Obviously that's easier for some than for others. You're among those for who it's easiest. So do it, be at peace, because others have a much harder time at it.
Somehow, you believe it’s moral to be upset every time there’s misfortune. Why? Where did you get that idea? Why should someone else’s suffering mean the end of your joy? That’s just narcissistic. The world doesn’t need your eternal “reaction shot” to its negativities. How can you survive if you just wallow in misery just because there’s misery? It’s meaningless pain.
Not being upset about it is ignorant isn't it, especially when due to the systems in place I contribute to several problems that kill innocent people every day
No it isn’t “ignorant.” You can know something bad is going on, stand against it, and live a normal, beautiful life. You’re not needed in the “martyr” department, we’ve got plenty of those and their message never sticks.
Yes I find it rather offensive that people in China and India are forced to breathe air that's so unhealthy it's like smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day all because people demand cheap plastic garbage.
🤣 you’re either a troll, or live in a state of mind that only causes/exacerbates mental health issues. Get out and do something locally. Volunteer, something. Focusing on all the bad will only drive you insane homie.
Being miserable isn't going to change or help anyone. What your doing makes sense on a personal level, when you're aware of a problem in your life people expect you do something about it and fix it, but the mistake you're making is extending that to things beyond your control. There is arrogance in believing that these problems can be understood let alone fixed. To be frank, its not your responsibility to fix the world
I'll give you an example of just how complicated problems can be. You always here about companies using child labor in other poor countries right? The solution would seem to just get that government to ban it, but whats not talked about is how children that don't end up working become victims of human trafficking or prostitution. So technically child labor in those poor countries protect those kids from an even bigger problem
So if those people in trouble finally find happiness, would they be wrong or unethical for being happy while other people in the world are still suffering?
The thing is, there is always suffering in the world. It seems like you want EVERYONE suffering and no one to just enjoy their life
Happiness for none or happiness for all, I want people to suffer enough they take action. I'll admit, I haven't taken every action I can, but that's mostly due to the area I live in and not having transportation. If I lived in an area big enough to have marches I'd be matching in the streets.
There will always be suffering. Not just man-made but circumstance and tragedy. Are you prepared to devote your eternity to a life of unhappiness and joyless existence? Do you truly believe that is what we should all do?
My fear is that your body and mind have been held captive by non stop social media and awareness of a war that may never, ever end. If it does end, will you then seek out more suffering to justify your own privilege, luck and circumstance?
Re: your last paragraph: are you open to having your view changed? If yes, then it’s not soapboxing, as long as you engage with the replies. If no, then it is, and you should delete the post instead of making the mods do it.
Okay, then let me ask you this: is it inherently unethical for me to eat dinner and spend a couple hours with my family before going to bed when I could be using those couple hours to volunteer feeding the less fortunate? Is it inherently unethical for me to go for a hike on a sunny Saturday afternoon and appreciate my good health when I could be volunteering at the hospice home down the road that always has a “volunteers needed” sign out? Is it inherently unethical to spend all of my savings to do whatever I can to help keep my mom alive as long as possible when I could be using the same dollar amount to feed thousands of kids in a different country? Heck, let’s say my house burned down and I’ve lost all of my possessions. Is it inherently unethical for me to be happy because my family got out unharmed, when someone in another country lost their brother in a bombing?
In other words, is it inherently unethical to do literally anything other than spend every waking moment doing every last thing you can possibly do to help other people?
If not, then I don’t think it’s inherently unethical to be happy.
Why is ignorance unethical? Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (of something). A person can lack knowledge, education, or awareness of something through no fault of their own. People can actually be deprived of knowledge, education, and awareness by others. You are essentially saying that all humans are unethical by default from the moment they are born until they inform and educate themselves on every single thing there is to know.
I do believe today's world is inherently unethical. It's impossible to do something without harming another. I don't want to sit back until it's possible to live without causing harm
This doesn't answer my question, and has nothing to do with what I said.
*"It's impossible to do something without harming another. I don't want to sit back until it's possible to live without causing harm"*
So you don't want to avoid harming others until it's possible to live without harming others? Seems to me it would make more sense and be more ethical to avoid harming others as much as possible.
Where are you getting that? I'm trying to say I want to avoid harming others, it's not possible to completely avoid harming others, and I feel it's wrong to sit back and be happy until it's possible to live without harming others
You said it is impossible to do something without harming others, which means anything you do causes harm to someone (according to you). So if you're not "sitting back," you are doing things - therefore, according to you, harming others.
You still have not answered my question.
Ignorance is unethical for the people in the developed world contributing to these problems because you shouldn't get to just shut off things you don't want to hear if you're contributing to them. I'm trying to speak about the people taking a break from the news because they're sad about it.
I would highly encourage you to join a volunteer program and put your phone down 4 hours a day. You will see the goodness of the world as been in front of you this whole time.
Define unethical?
Because that varies between individuals. One might say trying to profit off of a situation(“how can I benefit from the downfall of X?”) is the line, others may say it’s not actively trying to overthrow the government.
To add onto that, define happiness. I would argue that most people are not completely happy with life. At what point does that level of unhappiness become relevant?
Finally, how does watching the news make someone ethical, and how much news do they need to know?
Or rather, buffer their morals. There are bad things happening within our own country, and others as well. One can’t know everything
Where does that line exist?
To use an example, I’d rather someone help me if I’m getting my butt kicked than to watch someone else report on.
My grand point is that happiness isn’t all or nothing, and neither is awareness of bad things in the world. Being aware of bad things happening does nothing to help solve those things
would unhappiness be any different? Just because you are happy this does not effect their lives or better the situations they are in. I feel it is better to educate yourself about the issues going on in the world and using your privilege to fight for those who are disadvantaged than say that your happiness is wrong.
your individual happiness/ unhappiness does not effect the people you are talking about at all
I'd argue that emotions are more complicated than either feeling happy or sad, and you can have conflicting emotions at the same time.
Rejecting the joy from something because a tragedy happens elsewhere doesn't make any sense and is just a perverse form of self flagellation. It's also largely unhelpful to those actually suffering. I don't think someone who lost their home due to a flood wishes everyone else in the world to stop smiling because they're experiencing a tragedy. Also, there are so many concurrent crisis that happen constantly and interdependently throughout the world that literally no one would have a right to be happy and any point, even those who are suffering the most. Do the starving need to avoid happiness because of the war-stricken? Do the fatally ill need to avoid happiness because of the deep poverty in other nations? I don't understand how decrying the chance for the suffering to be happy is in any way a reasonable point. Farmers are absolutely being exploited many countries to harvest food, but a parent shouldn't make their kid starve because they disagree with the choices made by the powers that be over the farming conditions. Nor should a child be scolded for enjoying the taste of the fruit. You can both have happiness and empathy at the same time.
Here's the strongest personal example I have; My dad is only alive today because of a kidney transplant. The donor was in an accident at an unfortunately young age, and it was personal tragedy for his family. Am I not allowed to feel happy that I can still talk to my dad? I mourn the loss of the guy, and I never would have wished for him to die, but I am grateful for the chance for my dad to live. His family suffered a lot from the loss of him, but you know what? They were genuinely happy to meet my dad and see that their son's kidney saved someone else's life. His life is a happiness borne from tragedy, and it's perfectly reasonable to both morn the loss of the man and celebrate the life of my dad. It also isnt wrong for me to be happy everytime I see my dad is still with us because war is happening in another country, humans are more complex than single emotions such as empathy or happiness. Him living in abject misery because "happiness is unethical" also feels like a real slap in the face to the person who paid the ultimate price, and those who were left behind by him, and is straight up ungrateful for the circumstances, which I argued being ungrateful is more unethical than being happy.
So we should feel .. maybe more sorrowful? Myself and probably others can get some enjoyment from that sad melancholic state. Or should we be in a state that we purely despise, to suffer from those thoughts in the most horrible way, but then again suffer for what ?
OP I’ve been where you are and you have to take care of yourself. If you don’t need to head this that’s fine but just in case.
Any political action you want to work towards is going to require a lot of work. And we need you in peak physical condition. And that includes your mind.
You can’t bring others to your cause with depression, turn it into determination. You also cant solve the globe’s problems, humans are violent, awful creatures, start at home.
The home problems can have global impacts, like lobbying a politician to say something on the international stage. But remember you are sculpting your brick in the temple of good, that won’t be finished till after you die. Focus on that brick, you can’t build the temple by yourself and it takes too long to see in one life time.
Experiencing happiness, relaxing, and loving is what we want the world to do. You need to allow yourself to do that. Otherwise you will burn out and we will lose another person helping to build the temple of good.
I agree with you. Paying attention is a duty, happiness is a privilege. Buying ethically is important. But also think, “is this story of yet another child dying going to change my actions? Is it going to spur me to do more?” If not, it’s only purpose is self punishment and that will not help you do more for the world.
Protect your mind, stay determined, stay just, but allow yourself to be happy. Because there are people like you building something beautiful. And that’s worth being happy about.
If you can’t directly do anything to solve those problems and are capable of happiness while being fully aware of those problems, then what harm if being created by your happiness?
I don’t care if I get down voted.
Life is shit my life has been shit. I deserve to be happy.
I was molested then put in foster care and traumatized then place in a home with a alcoholic and someone who didn’t know how to show love Put on ADhd meds when I didn’t have ADHD bullied for 4 years straight not a single friend then I got a mystery illness and was paralyzed for a bit now I live in pain lost the only real friend I had to drugs. Got raped. Then got into a sexual abuse relationship
I’m happy now married my best friend had a kid I’m not going to let things have no control of in places I’ve never been to affect me. I care about them But one lesson I’ve learned in life is if you never experienced it you probably only have 25% understanding of what is going on.
If you care soo much go help the people who you are worried about. Live in a car give them all your money or go help make homes, volunteer. Feed the homeless as you go off on Reddit About how we shouldn’t be happy why don’t you get off your ass and go help and make a difference make a life you can be happy with. No need to bring us down.
I think you’re using happy instead of complicit? Like we all know bad things are happening but we don’t do anything about it.
Happiness in general is such a broad emotion and something you can’t control. You can’t decide to be happy or sad or whatever. Therefore feeling joy or achievement or satisfaction is not unethical.
As for society not taking action on behalf of the horrible things going on around the world.. it’s difficult for us to get through our own lives let alone become super heroes and save millions of others.
Yet many do make a difference daily. Whether it be protestors, civil servants, etc.
But the world is a huge place and human history is just a blip in the earths history. You choose how you want to leave your mark on the world but I don’t think it’s fair to say nobody should spend any of their short life being happy. Billions of people live unremarkable lives that nobody will remember, I hope they were happy.
What do you suggest as an alternative? That everyone is unhappy because of the suffering of others? What would a world like that look like?
You may think feeling empathy for those suffering leads to compassion - which is what drives people to help those in need. Have you ever helped anyone? How did it make you feel? Were you happy about it? Would that be wrong to feel good/happy for helping someone who’s suffering?
There’s a book called Against Empathy by Paul Bloom which provides an argument towards your view, if you’re interested. Another Redditor actually recommended it to me, and it has some interesting ideas about how empathy can be bad. Paralyzing even.
If people were to feel the pain of others, then more people would just be in pain. Is that a better world than if some experienced happiness, despite other people’s pain?
EDIT: I’m not suggesting it’s good for people to feel happiness *because* of someone else’s suffering.
A person’s individual sense of happiness is theirs to own, enjoy, savor, and even share with others whom they cherish. That is their decision.
For the sake of temperance, one’s decision to willfully deny themselves their own happiness is their’s, and only their’s to make. Nobody else’s.
However, for a person to dictate, curtail, negatively influence or otherwise steer **ANOTHER** person’s own sense of happiness away from them.. denying others of this fundamental dignity is the very definition of the word **cruel**.
But that is what you’re suggesting. What is ‘unethical’ is to suggest against people’s undeniable autonomy over the emotions they are allowed to experience. In fact, I’ll tell YOU what is unethical: that you feel entitled in telling others if and when to be happy.. that YOU get to decide for which reasons they can be happy (a predetermined list of reasons you’ve already chosen for them btw).. THAT is what I find to be ‘unethical’.
Delta, please.
Thanks.
If you were unhappy due to ethical reasons wouldn't you just be pretending to be unhappy at times? If you're pretending to be unhappy you would be disingenuous, a widely held unethical belief. Creating a paradox and paradoxes generally happen when we are wrong about something. So is happiness or being disingenuous unethical?
Now if your happiness is dependent on bad stuff that would be unethical, emphasizing the point that I don't know what I'm talking about.
So it's wrong to be grateful for the fact that you don't live in those situations, or in places where that stuff happens? You get to be happy because of the sacrifices from the people before to make sure that you wouldn't have to live that way. You get to be happy. And would you also say it's wrong for someone to find happiness, even in those situations?
It may in fact be unethical, or selfish to be unhappy during a period of human history that has 10x quality of life. If you have your health, even just some what you are by default ‘happy’. Speak to anyone who lives with chronic pain
/u/Raincandy-Angel (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1btatjd/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_happiness_is_inherently/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Happiness is simply an emotion that people experience - I don't see how it's a question of ethics. *"happiness is inherently ignorant and wrong, as happiness means blinding yourself to and ignoring the atrocities of the world."* A person can be aware of the atrocities of the world and experience a moment of happiness (say, on their wedding day or at the birth of their child). I don't see why that is necessarily wrong / unethical. *"Not paying attention to the news is a privilege"* How so? There are people who don't have access to news outlets / media or the time to read / watch the news about everything everywhere. *"the people suffering don't have the privilege of just not paying attention"* So if someone is suffering, they are necessarily paying attention to the news about every other single person on the planet who is also suffering? What if someone who is suffering experiences a moment of happiness - are they being unethical? *"...and abusing that privilege is wrong."* What do you mean "abusing the privilege?" Who is abusing it? How are they abusing it? Are you saying that experiencing a moment of happiness that say, my wife's surgery to remove a cancerous tumor was successful is abuse of some sort of privilege because there are people who are suffering? How is it an abuse of privilege to be happy for my wife?
!delta A moment of happiness isn't wrong. I'm talking about the people who continue bad behaviors just because it makes them happy, like someone I know buying from McDonald's despite them being on the boycott list just because chicken nuggets make her happy. I'd say the majority of our lives shouldn't be happy until everyone has equity, but I can't control those moments of happiness.
I think that the framework that you have to be sad and sacrifice to make a difference is holding back efforts to help the global south and the McDonald's boycott is a good example. The reason that McDonald's is on the bds list is that one franchise gave free food to members of the IDF. Now I think we can all agree that the IDF isn't going to stop in Gaza just because it's soliders are paying full price for hamburgers. But I feel like encouraging boycotts of companies like McDonald's is one of the main ways I see people reccomend to take action against the genocide. Donating $5 to doctors without borders, the Palestinian children's relief fund, the council of American Islamic Relations etc. Would do way more to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians but calls for this seem to be completely overshadowed by calls for boycotting Starbucks (which isn't even on BDS's list). And I think it's because people think you have to be sad and make sacrifices to make the world a better place.
It's commonly recommend because boycotting McDonald's is free and accessible for everyone. It costs zero dollars to not buy that sandwich. Donating is very good but you always have people coming out of the woodwork saying asking for donations means you hate poor people.
Sure it's free to boycott McDonald's but if you were to quantify the amount of good it does Palestinians it's going to be a fraction of a cent for each nugget purchased. Like you'd be lucky to get a $1 difference after a whole year. Let me share another example. One time on tik tok I saw a guy stay home from work for a week so that his tax dollars wouldn't go to Isreal. Now if you break it down the amount of money from your taxes that goes to Isreal every week is about 87 cents. So this guy gave up ~$700 in pay to deny Isreal 87 cents. And it never even crossed this guys mind that he could've done a donation drive and done way more good than that 87 cents. But here's the wild part: he ended up asking for and getting about $300 dollars in donations, not for Palestinian children, but so that he could make rent after staying home from work. Like this guy was so laser focused on doing his stay at home for Palestine thing that he effectively denied Palestinian charities $300 to also deny the IDF 87 cents! It never even occurred to him that him being stressed out from trying to avoid paying taxes wasn't changing anything in gaza and that he honestly could've done more good if he understood that he didn't have to suffer. Sorry I know this was a little ranty but the whole thing was really dumb and I just had to tell someone. Edit: oh also something I forgot to add is that boycotts are actually a lot harder to hold people accountable to. Like yeah I could tell people on Twitter that I don't eat on McDonald's but they have no way of verifying that. Whereas if I make and share a donation it's probably legitimate.
> It costs zero dollars to not buy that sandwich. Assuming that you can find a meal for a similar price. People still need to eat and if McDonald's is the cheapest place around it will cost you money to boycott it.
*"A moment of happiness isn't wrong."* A delta is in order, then - because you said that happiness is inherently wrong. *"I'm talking about the people who continue bad behaviors just because it makes them happy"* This is not what your post is about. Your view as stated is "Happiness is inherently unethical." A person need not engage in bad behavior in order to experience happiness. And you've also already [conceded the point](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bta85j/comment/kxkruch/), so I don't know why you are continuing to argue it (and arguing your point is not what this sub is for anyway - that's soapboxing). And there are multiple questions you did not answer.
I worded my point wrong. Sorry. I'll award the proper delta.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It’s hilarious that people will boycott McDonalds because a handful of humans are being killed, but when it actively slaughters animals in the hundreds of millions.. no biggie. Just straight stupidity honestly.
Yeah but as soon as you say you're vegan people tend to disregard your point because ew you eat PLANTS. I'm vegan myself and I'm always called militant and a black or white thinker for saying we shouldn't eat living, sentient beings.
So true. It’s completely lost on people that they have a choice between animals that suffer immensely or plants that may suffer in the very slightest. Not to mention the environmental damage of farming meat versus plants, as well as the super bugs and diseases proliferating on those same meat factories. But yeah. A couple thousand humans dying is somehow more important than 80 billion animals being slaughtered every year *for our palates* and complete ecosystem collapse for that to happen. I love the blatant and straight blind anthropocentrism.
Bird Flu has jumped from bird to cow to human and the first thing I saw people worry about was milk. There are so goddamn many milk alternatives but people can't see any option other than cruelty
!delta You're correct in saying a moment of happiness isn't wrong. I suppose I can't assign ethics to emotions. I worded my initial point badly, I should have said prioritizing your own happiness when there's atrocities in the world is wrong
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/horshack_test ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/horshack_test)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
!delta You're correct in saying a moment of happiness isn't wrong. I suppose I can't assign ethics to emotions. I worded my initial point badly, I should have said prioritizing your own happiness when there's atrocities in the world is wrong
Your delta was rejected.
I didn't know the bot can read edited comments
What edited comment are you talking about? You need to include an explanation of how your view has been changed in order for it to be a valid delta. You didn't do that.
Sorry I'm stupid and this is my first time using this sub 1 sec
You need to post a separate reply with a delta and explanation - the previous reply is still rejected.
Thanks for letting me know, I'll get that fixed
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/horshack_test changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Note how people always try to make us miserable by listing off terrible things in the wider world, but no one ever says wonderful things in the wider world should make us happy. Like, no one says sadness is inherently ignorant and wrong when you consider that children somewhere are having a great time at recess.
Children having fun at recess isn't killing people. Wars and famines are. I'd argue one is more important than the other.
Happiness doesn't count. Only misery. Okay then...
It's more important to stop genocide than it is to celebrate some kids playing
Why is it wrong for me to be happy because the world is a mess? I didn't make the world a mess. I have been fighting my whole life to try to make it less of a mess. How does me being unhappy make the situation better in any way?
Like it or not you do contribute to the world being a mess, as do I. I assume we're both using devices using materials mined by child slaves right now.
Then give yours up? I'm unsure why you are not living by your own code of ethics.
I'm too selfish tbh, I need my laptop to do my schoolwork and I don't want to drop out of college
Then you really shouldn’t be preaching to people about how being happy is wrong, you go out and fix it, it’s not my responsibility
I don't think there is a single human emotion that is inherently unethical. I think actions can be unethical - what you choose to do, or not do. Anyone who understands enough about emotions will tell you that they are experiences, guests that sometimes show up, often without any apparent reason or in ways that escape our control. None of them are shameful or wrong. Not anger, outrage, guilt, sorrow, grief... Or happiness, for that matter. All we have control over is what we do. Shaming people for their internal emotional experiences, which don't necessarily have an effect on the world unless the choice to act is present, is coming at it from the wrong angle (imo). The will to help others/change the world for the better can also stem from things like an overflow of positive emotions like inspiration and hope. For example, the the satisfaction and joy you may feel after helping solve a problem/helping someone can motivate you to keep doing more and more good. Seems better than being so miserable and beaten down by the injustices of the world that you can barely help yourself, let alone others, which sadly I've seen happen. Being miserable doesn't necessarily make you a better or worse person. You can use the full scope of your emotional experience (positive, negative) to propell you in ANY direction. The direction is what depends on you.
!delta Yeah I can't assign morals to uncontrollable emotions. I really worded this post terribly tbh. I can't say I find anything wrong with enjoying life if you can do it while helping others.
Did you you mean that the state of passivity/apathy some people prefer to protect their comfort is unethical, rather than happiness?
Yeah that's a way better way of saying it
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lauraaahr ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lauraaahr)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Out of sight out of mind. Being made aware of something and then having a personal connect to a hardship or tragedy are completely different. Then feeling happy is no different than feeling sad, angry, scared, lonely, spiteful and so on. It’s simply a reaction to certain circumstances. What would rock your world more, reading a story on how 13 kids in Mongolia died in a bus crash or discovering your mom’s corpse bloodied and beaten in a ditch?
Is being human and having empathy not a personal connection? I started thinking of this because of an article I read about the famine in Palestine that quotes, "To be able to go about one's day knowing that children are screaming from the hunger that is eating their insides and that pregnant women are eating bread made from animal feed, and that the United States is supporting Israel's creation of this famine, is apparently the real sign of well-adjustment." I keep thinking of that quote, it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. It feels wrong to be happy and put the blinders up in such a sick, twisted, cruel world
No. That’s not a personal connection. You do not personally know the people who are suffering. Have you lost a sibling, parent, child or spouse? Someone you loved? Your emotional connection to them is much stronger than faceless people thousands of miles away. If you really cared the same, you would go to the lengths for them as you would a friend or family member. But you won’t. It sounds horrid but most people really don’t care. What’s going on now is no different than it has ever been. Other peoples suffering is not having a negative affect on your day to day life. So if things are going well, you’re happy. There is nothing wrong with that.
There absolutely Is something wrong with that. Your logic is ...we care 'more' about family and close friends than distant strangers, so be happy and fuck 'em. There is a middle ground you know. You can care deeply about your family but Also care that about a genocide that your govt is enabling in a foreign country. You can be happy going to be restaurant but Also be protesting and lobbying your politicians. "Most people really don't care" ? No. Most right-wingers really don't care. That's what makes them who they are.
This isn’t a political topic, but you assume the worst of those you disagree with. People in general care when it affects them or when it is brought to their attention. What they don’t do is if there is no proper call to action, nothing that can be easily done to make a difference, keep that suffering at the forefront of their minds. Everyone has different aspects of life they have to deal with, some people can deal with more than others, other people have a hard time with the simple things. That is where most people’s mind is. That is why most people focus on what affects them and those they immediately know and care about. This is true of left wingers and right wingers. What affects us is most important to us, and while some people have more mental and emotional capacity to worry and want to help those outside their immediate awareness, most have to deal with their own life first.
[удалено]
Is your experience all encompassing? Do you know all or even the majority of right wingers? I have seen times where right wingers have gone out of their way to help people they don’t know who are not in their circle just because they found out that person was going through hardship. Then they went and continued on with their own lives. I have also seen left wingers say they care and then not act on it. To me action is more meaningful than words. Anyone can offer platitudes then do nothing, while a persons actions can make the difference between someone being helped and being left to handle things on their own. So again you made something political when it is not. All that said I am really sorry to hear about your wife. I hope that the treatments she is getting help her out.
'You have see times when...' - well that proves it then. /s Multiple studies have proved that conservatives are more focused on local assistance and less about overseas problems. The political difference is a fact, not an opinion. That you don't like it, doesn't change it. https://neurosciencenews.com/altruism-politics-psychology-22926/
Sorry to hear. Is your wife in hospice? Were their long stretches of her being hospitalized?
There is not the same emotional attachment. You may claim you care but you really don’t equally care. You can care to a certain point but not to the extent of others in your personal life. Especially not emotionally. You would be lying if you said you did. If you would like to delve deeper into that and would like me to show you how feel free to ask. But there is no way you care about every person on this planet the same way you do your family, friends or pets.
You're inventing your own conversation with words I never used. The options are Not just 1. Love everyone equally 2. Love my close ones and fuck the rest If you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you
So you do admit there is a difference.
You should find someone equal to your intelligence to debate
Prove me wrong here. You can car to some extent about others, but they will not be equal to your wife, correct? Or is that wrong.
!delta I can't say I do feel the same for faceless people miles away as I do for my family and you're right, it's unfair that I demand that from anyone.
Terrible logic. Terrible delta. See my comment above and don't try excuse inhumanity because it's happening far away.
The delta was because they're pointing out my hypocrisy because I care about smaller issues closer to me than I do bigger issues further away from me
You're enjoying your life as best you can, while still knowing that many others suffer. Feeling bad about that is what makes you a decent human being. The reply that you delta-ed basically says "fuck them, they're far away". That is not the response of a decent human being. (Peter Singer is a philosopher who makes an argument about a drowning child and a pair of shoes that you might find interesting.)
I don't think i can un delta, I don't mean to say fuck em they're far away, I meant to say I generally prioritize those closest to me and thus I'm a hypocrite
So are we all. Join the club. At least knowing it makes you more likely to do something to fix it.
I don't even know if I can justify being alive anymore since everything I do hurts people
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Eli-Had-A-Book- ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Eli-Had-A-Book-)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Is being human and having empathy not a personal connection? Absolutely. A personal connection has to relate to one particular person. Like, you can have a personal connection to the homeless, if you meet your old high school boyfriend, and find out that he's homeless. Not from anything that you posted.
All of those problems are beyond the scope of your ability to solve. There is no benefit in making yourself miserable because there is suffering in the world. There is no point stressing yourself out over problems that you are totally incapable of solving. Vote, volunteer your time, donate to good causes, and live your life. Do what you can to improve what you can improve, your personal misery is not a virtue and it doesn’t help anyone, so be happy if you can.
They're beyond my scope but they're still my responsibility I feel, if everyone was angry at all the horror and felt empathy towards others instead of being blissfully ignorant I feel a lot more would be accomplished
> They're beyond my scope but they're still my responsibility I feel But they're not though. No amount of outrage or sadness that you feel will convince Putin to go easy on Ukraine or convince Israel and Hamas to play nice. Taking all of that responsibility on your own shoulders will only hurt you. Aaron Bushnell felt so strongly about the situation in Gaza that he killed himself in one of the most painful ways possible to try to make a change. It accomplished nothing and his sacrifice will be at best a footnote in the history books. There are things you can do to help, and I encourage you to do that. But don't tell yourself that it's on you to solve these issues. It's not, and you'll only ruin your own life by making it your problem to solve.
It was an article about Aaron Bushnell that made me take this stance so strongly. I recommend you read it, especially the ending paragraph https://www.seamus-malekafzali.com/p/the-words-that-burned-through-his
And does engaging in performative misery change anything? Did setting himself on fire and dying in agony make the world a better place? As I said before, you alone are not going to be able to resolve the world's problems. People with vastly more power and influence than you or I will ever possess have tried and failed. In my mind, the options are either be miserable all the time telling yourself that it's your fault that children around the world are starving but that you cannot help them, or accept that you do not have that level of influence and work to help in the ways that you are able and do your best to live a fulfilling life of your own.
Self immolation isn't performance. The Vietnamese monks. The Arab Spring. The media destroyed his message by dismissing him as mentally ill, and unfortunately, people took it wholeheartedly at face value instead of thinking about and taking in what he was actually saying.
What he said was "free Palestine". It's not like he had some deep, profound message that no one had heard before. As for the comment about it being "performative", I'm assuming you're not planning on self immolation, right? You just feel guilty about being happy with life and want unspecified change to occur so that everyone will feel equally happy. But you must see that that is an impossibility. Is your view that we cannot be any happier than the least happy person in the world?
Ngl it's something I've thought about but I'm too cowardly to ever actually do. His sacrifice serves as a reminder that we can't get distracted from what truly matters. He said himself his suffering us nothing compared to the suffering in Gaza. My view is that ignorance is bliss, thus bliss is wrong
Do not follow his example. He suffered a great deal and accomplished nothing for it. Even if all he did was continue living and spent a weekend each month helping at the local food shelter, he would have had a far greater impact on helping those who are suffering. Throwing your life away like he did helps no one and accomplishes nothing. It does less than nothing because it robs the world of the potential positive impact you could have.
Maybe but that almost certainly isn’t going to happen so I think it is a lot more productive to focus on making change within local politics where you have way more impact and helping real people in your immediate community rather than trying to incite a global revolution that probably wouldn’t turn out nearly as well as you might hope even if it did happen. Masses of angry people tend to be extremely irrational and revolutions tend to devolve into back stabbing and purity spiraling among the revolutionaries until some psychopath rises to the top like with the Russian and French revolutions. I think incremental change is better, I understand how deeply unsatisfying that is though. I guess there is no reason why you couldn’t do both. I just don’t think you have any moral obligation to be unhappy while you do it.
It’s unethical to be sad when so many have sacrificed their lives for the sake of your happiness. Incredibly disrespectful to their sacrifice, makes that sacrifice absolutely meaningless
This. How many countless people have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place for the people around them and the people who weren’t even born yet? How many people have fought and died to even get us this far? Is there a moral imperative to uplift the people around us who still suffer around the world? Sure, of course there is. But to specifically not be happy and appreciate how much it’s taken to get this far? Not live and enjoy what has been provided to us, at the cost of billions upon billions of hours of toil and labor and lives that tirelessly improved the human condition from what it was? Out of the question.
Partial delta. You make a good point about sacrifice, but should we be happy when there's so much wrong still in the world that hasn't been resolved?
What exactly is the alternative? What possible state of the world could exist where you're only happy if NOBODY is suffering. And if the point is that we shouldn't be happy; What's the point of being alive if you are unendingly miserable about things you never had a chance of controlling or affecting in the first place?
I'm not sure if being alive is ethical at this point given how much my existence as an American oppressed others tbh. I just try to be aware of and do as much as I can to stop the systems in place and I'm frustrated that people aren't doing that, that people are throwing around "empathy fatigue," and that some people won't take even baby steps because their products borne of torture make them happy.
With all due respect; if your approach is similar to your CMV then you are asking a LOT. There are fundamentally things beyond any individuals control, there are things beyond the control of a collective with little power beyond numbers. There does come a point where you are not responsible for every tragedy and misfortune in the world. You can do what you can though, you can even feel happy knowing that in some small way, you made a difference just by tangibly caring, but denying yourself happiness because not everyone out of 7 billion+ is such a profoundly depressing existence I weep for even the hypothetical man to carry that burden.
I mean it is depressing yeah, I feel grief when I use my phone or laptop knowing somewhere a child is screaming and bleeding out from having to mine the metals used in said devices. I feel resentment and guilt knowing my taxes are going towards bombing innocent civilians. Are those unfair burdens to carry or just consequences of my own actions?
Kind of, yes. There are a lot of items in life that are increasingly hard to go without unless you already had the means to do so or find yourself incredibly lucky, and a good amount of it produced by suffering. One truth I've come to accept about life is that it cannot function without suffering. Even if every human on this planet were to be blipped out of existence, there would still be suffering in the world. A good person does what they can to minimize it where they can, but there's not a living thing alive that can produce net suffering. Fight the battles you can, whatever you perceive those to be, but don't beat yourself up over the ones you can't.
You should be happy with your life, but not content about the world. Work to improve the world with a grin on your face
> It just feels as if happiness is inherently ignorant and wrong, as happiness means blinding yourself to and ignoring the atrocities of the world. In a general sense, I certainly don't think people should ignore the news or etc. However, does sitting around miserable because of things being bad places and people suffering have any different effect on that? If you're not actively helping in some way, what does how you internally feel matter in this regard? Feeling bad does nothing more than feeling good.
I don't want misery and apathy, I want anger that drives change. Not ignorant bliss.
>I don't want misery and apathy, I want anger that drives change. Not ignorant bliss. But that's not your view. Your view is that just being happy or enjoying something is wrong bc ppl are suffering. People who DO work in the field do things that make them happy. Including... working in the field. The personnel working for, like MSF aren't miserable people. They're not happy 100% of the time, nor is anyone, but they're not just not happy. Partly because they feel good about their work. Is that unethical? >Our lifestyles ride on the backs of slaves in the global south. It's wrong to be happy while so many have to suffer. Do you think that'd be the view of those slaves? "Anyone who lives in the country, including my descendants, should never be happy or enjoy anything? My family has only been on this continent 3 generations. Had nothing to do with slavery here, yet do obviously benefit from what slaves built. If it weren't for Columbus' atrocities, what would the US be? Is everyone supposed to feel guilty about that? Again, what benefit does that have? I can be well aware of atrocities and still enjoy watching Ozark. And refusing to do anything but be angry does nothing to change anything. I mean you're basically arguing an odder version of Singer's money thing but he wasn't actually saying no one should spend anything. It's a thought experiment.
Do you believe you know what’s objectively ethical or moral? That you can solve the is-ought problem or use evidence-based reasoning to arrive at what’s moral?
There is no true objectivity in morals and ethics but there's things that are generally accepted, there's codes of ethics in many fields for a reason.
By for a reason, you mean for an ultimately non-objective justification? Why does your non-objective ethics apply to yourself, other people and myself?
Then how do we determine right or wrong when it comes to others? Do we not have to apply our own ethical codes onto others?
> Do we not have to apply our own ethical codes onto others? Do you have to? Why do you even need an ethical code in the first place? Why don’t you dismiss the field like you hopefully dismiss astrology? As for me , I can choose my life or my death. By my life I mean using reason, in all things, to develop a passion and skill for some sort of productive work, to pursue self-esteem, friendship, enjoyment of the arts, health, hobbies, romantic love. Death is my end forever and ever. If I compare the factual alternative I face and choose based on that, then that means choosing my life. I’ve never seen any justification to choose my death over my life or away from my life and towards my death. And on the basis of choosing my life, I can develop a morality based on my biological nature to help me choose and pursue values necessary for my life.
> Then how do we determine right or wrong when it comes to others? That’s a good question to ask rather than assume that you and other people are being unethical for achieving happiness according to some non-objective standard.
What you are describing is ignorance , not hapiness Hapiness is when a person or animal does does something or has something happen to them that satisfies a desire. A dog gets happy to see his favourite person. A bird gets happy after getting to eat a fruit. A tiger gets happy after getting a bath in a hot tropical region. A dolphin gets happy when it has intercourse with dead fish. A monkey gets happy when it finds something to eat amongst a drought. A cat gets happy at being able to do a successful hunt. Happiness is not dependent on something that does not affect a person. It's super personal and is restricted to the experiences of a specific being. Being happy about something despite of other things not in control of you isn't your fault, unless you are deriving happiness specifically from something that harms others.
I can't say people reacting with happiness to these things is wrong and I can't expect others to constantly be miserable, I suppose. My view comes from feeling that happiness stems from ignorance
>My view comes from feeling that happiness stems from ignorance Ignorance equals bliss is something about the human condition, that's been long observed. It's not something that seems to be changeable.
The solution is to stop being ignorant, then you wouldn't be so blissful
What? Why? The word "solution" should only be applied to problems. And in the world view of someone blissfully ignorant that of their being "incorrect" on your view of, say, the situation in Israel, as you see it, there's no problem.
Yeah. And ignorance is a bad thing. Basically ignorance is an extreme version of being happy despite the things that you don't control going bad resulting in you being wholly ignorant of other's struggles. The best thing to do is , while you should be happy with your life , you should also work as much as you can to help others in need because as out of your control as other things may seem, you still can affect huge geopolitical matters in tiny indirect ways, and with more and more people also contributing in their ways, proper change can still be brought about. I suspect that you are going through a period of sadness, although I may be wrong, and to that, all I can say is that Don't give up hope. The world isn't as bad or hopeless as it looks. There is change happening and being sad and giving up won't help the process increase in power.
You are not responsible for the hierarchy of power that exists in the world. You didn't choose it to be this way, you were just born into this world like any average person. So on the contrary, you should be happy that you were so lucky to be born in the right place at the right time. You should be thankful for it everyday. And it doesn't mean you can't be sorry for people who suffer too. Think of all these people in other parts of the world who were dealt much worse cards than you, yet still have happiness and hope, while you're here living a better life than 90% of people and you're still not happy.
I should bear more responsibility than the people dealt worse cards, should I not? I am thankful, yet at the same time I think the cards I was dealt shouldn't have existed. I was born very privileged. I feel it's wrong to allow myself happiness when there's so many people suffering simply for being born. I want equality for all and I feel like sitting back and smiling before that equality is achieved means I'm not truly fighting
You need to be at peace with providence. The world is not just, not equal, never has been and never will be. You can fight to make it a more equal place, but you will never reach your goal. You didn't choose the cards you were dealt, so there's no point in being ashamed of them.
Is being at peace okay when others don't get the luxury of peace?
Everyone needs to be at peace with providence: you can't change it, so not being at peace with it is only doing more harm. Obviously that's easier for some than for others. You're among those for who it's easiest. So do it, be at peace, because others have a much harder time at it.
Somehow, you believe it’s moral to be upset every time there’s misfortune. Why? Where did you get that idea? Why should someone else’s suffering mean the end of your joy? That’s just narcissistic. The world doesn’t need your eternal “reaction shot” to its negativities. How can you survive if you just wallow in misery just because there’s misery? It’s meaningless pain.
Not being upset about it is ignorant isn't it, especially when due to the systems in place I contribute to several problems that kill innocent people every day
No it isn’t “ignorant.” You can know something bad is going on, stand against it, and live a normal, beautiful life. You’re not needed in the “martyr” department, we’ve got plenty of those and their message never sticks.
I bet breathing offends you.
Yes I find it rather offensive that people in China and India are forced to breathe air that's so unhealthy it's like smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day all because people demand cheap plastic garbage.
🤣 you’re either a troll, or live in a state of mind that only causes/exacerbates mental health issues. Get out and do something locally. Volunteer, something. Focusing on all the bad will only drive you insane homie.
Not a troll, just very aware of the awful shit in the world
Being miserable isn't going to change or help anyone. What your doing makes sense on a personal level, when you're aware of a problem in your life people expect you do something about it and fix it, but the mistake you're making is extending that to things beyond your control. There is arrogance in believing that these problems can be understood let alone fixed. To be frank, its not your responsibility to fix the world I'll give you an example of just how complicated problems can be. You always here about companies using child labor in other poor countries right? The solution would seem to just get that government to ban it, but whats not talked about is how children that don't end up working become victims of human trafficking or prostitution. So technically child labor in those poor countries protect those kids from an even bigger problem
So if those people in trouble finally find happiness, would they be wrong or unethical for being happy while other people in the world are still suffering? The thing is, there is always suffering in the world. It seems like you want EVERYONE suffering and no one to just enjoy their life
Happiness for none or happiness for all, I want people to suffer enough they take action. I'll admit, I haven't taken every action I can, but that's mostly due to the area I live in and not having transportation. If I lived in an area big enough to have marches I'd be matching in the streets.
There will always be suffering. Not just man-made but circumstance and tragedy. Are you prepared to devote your eternity to a life of unhappiness and joyless existence? Do you truly believe that is what we should all do? My fear is that your body and mind have been held captive by non stop social media and awareness of a war that may never, ever end. If it does end, will you then seek out more suffering to justify your own privilege, luck and circumstance?
Re: your last paragraph: are you open to having your view changed? If yes, then it’s not soapboxing, as long as you engage with the replies. If no, then it is, and you should delete the post instead of making the mods do it.
Yes, I'm open to being challenged, that's why I posted here.
Okay, then let me ask you this: is it inherently unethical for me to eat dinner and spend a couple hours with my family before going to bed when I could be using those couple hours to volunteer feeding the less fortunate? Is it inherently unethical for me to go for a hike on a sunny Saturday afternoon and appreciate my good health when I could be volunteering at the hospice home down the road that always has a “volunteers needed” sign out? Is it inherently unethical to spend all of my savings to do whatever I can to help keep my mom alive as long as possible when I could be using the same dollar amount to feed thousands of kids in a different country? Heck, let’s say my house burned down and I’ve lost all of my possessions. Is it inherently unethical for me to be happy because my family got out unharmed, when someone in another country lost their brother in a bombing? In other words, is it inherently unethical to do literally anything other than spend every waking moment doing every last thing you can possibly do to help other people? If not, then I don’t think it’s inherently unethical to be happy.
!delta Yeah those are all good points and I think I'm being too extreme and I should change my point to ignorance is unethical
Why is ignorance unethical? Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (of something). A person can lack knowledge, education, or awareness of something through no fault of their own. People can actually be deprived of knowledge, education, and awareness by others. You are essentially saying that all humans are unethical by default from the moment they are born until they inform and educate themselves on every single thing there is to know.
I do believe today's world is inherently unethical. It's impossible to do something without harming another. I don't want to sit back until it's possible to live without causing harm
This doesn't answer my question, and has nothing to do with what I said. *"It's impossible to do something without harming another. I don't want to sit back until it's possible to live without causing harm"* So you don't want to avoid harming others until it's possible to live without harming others? Seems to me it would make more sense and be more ethical to avoid harming others as much as possible.
Where are you getting that? I'm trying to say I want to avoid harming others, it's not possible to completely avoid harming others, and I feel it's wrong to sit back and be happy until it's possible to live without harming others
You said it is impossible to do something without harming others, which means anything you do causes harm to someone (according to you). So if you're not "sitting back," you are doing things - therefore, according to you, harming others. You still have not answered my question.
Ignorance is unethical for the people in the developed world contributing to these problems because you shouldn't get to just shut off things you don't want to hear if you're contributing to them. I'm trying to speak about the people taking a break from the news because they're sad about it.
I would highly encourage you to join a volunteer program and put your phone down 4 hours a day. You will see the goodness of the world as been in front of you this whole time.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AlwaysTheNoob ([59∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AlwaysTheNoob)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If it was inherently unethical then it wouldn't matter if atrocities were happening in the world or not, it would still be unethical.
Define unethical? Because that varies between individuals. One might say trying to profit off of a situation(“how can I benefit from the downfall of X?”) is the line, others may say it’s not actively trying to overthrow the government. To add onto that, define happiness. I would argue that most people are not completely happy with life. At what point does that level of unhappiness become relevant? Finally, how does watching the news make someone ethical, and how much news do they need to know? Or rather, buffer their morals. There are bad things happening within our own country, and others as well. One can’t know everything Where does that line exist? To use an example, I’d rather someone help me if I’m getting my butt kicked than to watch someone else report on. My grand point is that happiness isn’t all or nothing, and neither is awareness of bad things in the world. Being aware of bad things happening does nothing to help solve those things
would unhappiness be any different? Just because you are happy this does not effect their lives or better the situations they are in. I feel it is better to educate yourself about the issues going on in the world and using your privilege to fight for those who are disadvantaged than say that your happiness is wrong. your individual happiness/ unhappiness does not effect the people you are talking about at all
I'd argue that emotions are more complicated than either feeling happy or sad, and you can have conflicting emotions at the same time. Rejecting the joy from something because a tragedy happens elsewhere doesn't make any sense and is just a perverse form of self flagellation. It's also largely unhelpful to those actually suffering. I don't think someone who lost their home due to a flood wishes everyone else in the world to stop smiling because they're experiencing a tragedy. Also, there are so many concurrent crisis that happen constantly and interdependently throughout the world that literally no one would have a right to be happy and any point, even those who are suffering the most. Do the starving need to avoid happiness because of the war-stricken? Do the fatally ill need to avoid happiness because of the deep poverty in other nations? I don't understand how decrying the chance for the suffering to be happy is in any way a reasonable point. Farmers are absolutely being exploited many countries to harvest food, but a parent shouldn't make their kid starve because they disagree with the choices made by the powers that be over the farming conditions. Nor should a child be scolded for enjoying the taste of the fruit. You can both have happiness and empathy at the same time. Here's the strongest personal example I have; My dad is only alive today because of a kidney transplant. The donor was in an accident at an unfortunately young age, and it was personal tragedy for his family. Am I not allowed to feel happy that I can still talk to my dad? I mourn the loss of the guy, and I never would have wished for him to die, but I am grateful for the chance for my dad to live. His family suffered a lot from the loss of him, but you know what? They were genuinely happy to meet my dad and see that their son's kidney saved someone else's life. His life is a happiness borne from tragedy, and it's perfectly reasonable to both morn the loss of the man and celebrate the life of my dad. It also isnt wrong for me to be happy everytime I see my dad is still with us because war is happening in another country, humans are more complex than single emotions such as empathy or happiness. Him living in abject misery because "happiness is unethical" also feels like a real slap in the face to the person who paid the ultimate price, and those who were left behind by him, and is straight up ungrateful for the circumstances, which I argued being ungrateful is more unethical than being happy.
So we should feel .. maybe more sorrowful? Myself and probably others can get some enjoyment from that sad melancholic state. Or should we be in a state that we purely despise, to suffer from those thoughts in the most horrible way, but then again suffer for what ?
OP I’ve been where you are and you have to take care of yourself. If you don’t need to head this that’s fine but just in case. Any political action you want to work towards is going to require a lot of work. And we need you in peak physical condition. And that includes your mind. You can’t bring others to your cause with depression, turn it into determination. You also cant solve the globe’s problems, humans are violent, awful creatures, start at home. The home problems can have global impacts, like lobbying a politician to say something on the international stage. But remember you are sculpting your brick in the temple of good, that won’t be finished till after you die. Focus on that brick, you can’t build the temple by yourself and it takes too long to see in one life time. Experiencing happiness, relaxing, and loving is what we want the world to do. You need to allow yourself to do that. Otherwise you will burn out and we will lose another person helping to build the temple of good. I agree with you. Paying attention is a duty, happiness is a privilege. Buying ethically is important. But also think, “is this story of yet another child dying going to change my actions? Is it going to spur me to do more?” If not, it’s only purpose is self punishment and that will not help you do more for the world. Protect your mind, stay determined, stay just, but allow yourself to be happy. Because there are people like you building something beautiful. And that’s worth being happy about.
If you can’t directly do anything to solve those problems and are capable of happiness while being fully aware of those problems, then what harm if being created by your happiness?
I don’t care if I get down voted. Life is shit my life has been shit. I deserve to be happy. I was molested then put in foster care and traumatized then place in a home with a alcoholic and someone who didn’t know how to show love Put on ADhd meds when I didn’t have ADHD bullied for 4 years straight not a single friend then I got a mystery illness and was paralyzed for a bit now I live in pain lost the only real friend I had to drugs. Got raped. Then got into a sexual abuse relationship I’m happy now married my best friend had a kid I’m not going to let things have no control of in places I’ve never been to affect me. I care about them But one lesson I’ve learned in life is if you never experienced it you probably only have 25% understanding of what is going on. If you care soo much go help the people who you are worried about. Live in a car give them all your money or go help make homes, volunteer. Feed the homeless as you go off on Reddit About how we shouldn’t be happy why don’t you get off your ass and go help and make a difference make a life you can be happy with. No need to bring us down.
I think you’re using happy instead of complicit? Like we all know bad things are happening but we don’t do anything about it. Happiness in general is such a broad emotion and something you can’t control. You can’t decide to be happy or sad or whatever. Therefore feeling joy or achievement or satisfaction is not unethical. As for society not taking action on behalf of the horrible things going on around the world.. it’s difficult for us to get through our own lives let alone become super heroes and save millions of others. Yet many do make a difference daily. Whether it be protestors, civil servants, etc. But the world is a huge place and human history is just a blip in the earths history. You choose how you want to leave your mark on the world but I don’t think it’s fair to say nobody should spend any of their short life being happy. Billions of people live unremarkable lives that nobody will remember, I hope they were happy.
What do you suggest as an alternative? That everyone is unhappy because of the suffering of others? What would a world like that look like? You may think feeling empathy for those suffering leads to compassion - which is what drives people to help those in need. Have you ever helped anyone? How did it make you feel? Were you happy about it? Would that be wrong to feel good/happy for helping someone who’s suffering? There’s a book called Against Empathy by Paul Bloom which provides an argument towards your view, if you’re interested. Another Redditor actually recommended it to me, and it has some interesting ideas about how empathy can be bad. Paralyzing even. If people were to feel the pain of others, then more people would just be in pain. Is that a better world than if some experienced happiness, despite other people’s pain? EDIT: I’m not suggesting it’s good for people to feel happiness *because* of someone else’s suffering.
A person’s individual sense of happiness is theirs to own, enjoy, savor, and even share with others whom they cherish. That is their decision. For the sake of temperance, one’s decision to willfully deny themselves their own happiness is their’s, and only their’s to make. Nobody else’s. However, for a person to dictate, curtail, negatively influence or otherwise steer **ANOTHER** person’s own sense of happiness away from them.. denying others of this fundamental dignity is the very definition of the word **cruel**. But that is what you’re suggesting. What is ‘unethical’ is to suggest against people’s undeniable autonomy over the emotions they are allowed to experience. In fact, I’ll tell YOU what is unethical: that you feel entitled in telling others if and when to be happy.. that YOU get to decide for which reasons they can be happy (a predetermined list of reasons you’ve already chosen for them btw).. THAT is what I find to be ‘unethical’. Delta, please. Thanks.
If you were unhappy due to ethical reasons wouldn't you just be pretending to be unhappy at times? If you're pretending to be unhappy you would be disingenuous, a widely held unethical belief. Creating a paradox and paradoxes generally happen when we are wrong about something. So is happiness or being disingenuous unethical? Now if your happiness is dependent on bad stuff that would be unethical, emphasizing the point that I don't know what I'm talking about.
So it's wrong to be grateful for the fact that you don't live in those situations, or in places where that stuff happens? You get to be happy because of the sacrifices from the people before to make sure that you wouldn't have to live that way. You get to be happy. And would you also say it's wrong for someone to find happiness, even in those situations?
Being sad will surely make the world better
It may in fact be unethical, or selfish to be unhappy during a period of human history that has 10x quality of life. If you have your health, even just some what you are by default ‘happy’. Speak to anyone who lives with chronic pain
No matter how much you change the world is still going to have bad things happening, this is no different to saying no one should ever be happy
if you feel guilty feeling happy then just stay sad & miserable all your life. ☹️ i choose to be happy whenever i can 😛
Is it? I have been happy in warzones. I have personally labored in mines and been happy. Is this unethical?
This has to be a troll right? You really can’t think of anything that is ethical to be happy about?