What do you value more than happiness?

[Davin]

I dunno, I don't see much of a distinction between pleasure and happiness.

pleasure

Pronunciation: /ˈplɛʒə/
noun
[mass noun]
a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment

happy

Pronunciation: /ˈhapi/
adjective (happier, happiest)
feeling or showing pleasure or contentment:

Many of the differences between words is the result of many of the definitions of the words, not the one bridge where people may use the words interchangeably.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Of course. But I  still think that there's more which points to them being synonym-ish than being distinctly and usefully different from a philosophical perspective.

[Siz]

Avoiding permanent damage doesn't please me, having all my body parts that I've become accustomed to is useful to me. Don't try to tell me what I find pleasure in, that is another common mistake people make, not only towards me, but towards other people. You can tell people how you feel and what pleases you, but you can't speak for someone else.

You, yourself, wrote:

"...risking permanent damage does usually rate pretty high...".

My argument is that I believe your motivation for minimising permanent damage is that this offers you more pleasure than allowing yourself to come to harm. Is that not correct?

I make thousands of decisions a day without the consideration of pleasing me or avoiding suffering.

I addressed this in answering PC's comments. The underlying premise in any decision - I believe - is a pursuit of happiness. I won't labour this point (again). If you dont accept this, then OK.

Sounds exactly like personal pleasures to me, and I don't know if they were happy or not, so I won't speculate.

I don't either, but, by all accounts, none of these people regretted their (reported) decisions in life. I can only assume from this that they were - on aggregate - 'happy' with their alturistic decisions.

[The Magic Pudding]

We are in many ways survival machines, just driven by genes to reproduce.
Many people don't seem to make a profit if happiness is the currency.
To say a starving person eating a cockroach is motivated by a pursuit of happiness is stretching the definition a smidge.  There is instinct at play and it doesn't care if we are happy, not unless it serves the process of passing on genes.  

Fear is instinctual, if I'm in the sea and a shark bites a guy's leg off, I scramble up shell encrusted rock which grates the flesh from my feet, legs, hands, arms, chest.  Where's the thought of happiness?  In some situations if you did the potential happiness/suffering equation you'd just lay down and die.  

And the things we do for love?  Is it for happiness?  Well I suppose some of us are eternally optimistic but I think we're having our strings pulled and the puppeteer couldn't care less if we are happy.

[Davin]

Of course. But I  still think that there's more which points to them being synonym-ish than being distinctly and usefully different from a philosophical perspective.

I fall in line with the psychological definition that happiness is a pleasant state of mind, but not derived solely from pleasure. As I stated earlier, happiness is a more persistent state than that of experiencing a pleasurable experience. Ones mood doesn't change instantly from one experience to the next (at least not for those without a mood disorder), it changes more slowly (except with extreme cases, like ones sister just died), so there must be something else to describe this mood one is in rather than using pleasure.

[Davin]

Avoiding permanent damage doesn't please me, having all my body parts that I've become accustomed to is useful to me. Don't try to tell me what I find pleasure in, that is another common mistake people make, not only towards me, but towards other people. You can tell people how you feel and what pleases you, but you can't speak for someone else.

You, yourself, wrote:

"...risking permanent damage does usually rate pretty high...".

My argument is that I believe your motivation for minimising permanent damage is that this offers you more pleasure than allowing yourself to come to harm. Is that not correct?

That certainly does sound like your argument, but again you failed to address my contention: you can't tell other people what they find pleasing or why they decided to do things.

Also, try the whole thing I myself said:

Decisions involving permanent damage are less common for my life, but risking permanent damage does usually rate pretty high over pain and/or happiness, though I know that with most permanent damage, I can still be happy.

Quote mining is not an admirable trait. Notice the last part I myself said. Loss of limb will most likely not affect my happiness because I can be happy with or without them, yet I still make decisions to avoid situations where my limbs are very likely to be lost.

I make thousands of decisions a day without the consideration of pleasing me or avoiding suffering.

I addressed this in answering PC's comments. The underlying premise in any decision - I believe - is a pursuit of happiness. I won't labour this point (again). If you dont accept this, then OK.

Please do explain how my decision to wear white socks is made to make myself happy over wearing black socks which would make me equally happy.

Sounds exactly like personal pleasures to me, and I don't know if they were happy or not, so I won't speculate.

I don't either, but, by all accounts, none of these people regretted their (reported) decisions in life. I can only assume from this that they were - on aggregate - 'happy' with their alturistic decisions.

This just sounds like circular reasoning here: you propose that people only do things to make themselves happy, these people seemed happy, therefore they must have only done things that make themselves happy.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Fear is instinctual, if I'm in the sea and a shark bites a guy's leg off, I scramble up shell encrusted rock which grates the flesh from my feet, legs, hands, arms, chest.  Where's the thought of happiness?  

I just want to say that I love your new hat - and your logic!

Congratulations!  The Logic Elf rewards anyone who thinks logically.  Look for an event that doesn't suck to happen soon in your life and when it does, think blue.

[Siz]

We are in many ways survival machines, just driven by genes to reproduce.
Many people don't seem to make a profit if happiness is the currency.
To say a starving person eating a cockroach is motivated by a pursuit of happiness is stretching the definition a smidge.  There is instinct at play and it doesn't care if we are happy, not unless it serves the process of passing on genes.  

Fear is instinctual, if I'm in the sea and a shark bites a guy's leg off, I scramble up shell encrusted rock which grates the flesh from my feet, legs, hands, arms, chest.  Where's the thought of happiness?  In some situations if you did the potential happiness/suffering equation you'd just lay down and die.  

And the things we do for love?  Is it for happiness?  Well I suppose some of us are eternally optimistic but I think we're having our strings pulled and the puppeteer couldn't care less if we are happy.

It is no coincidence that it is exactly these survivial requirements that offer the most pleasure - eating, sex, family bondng, endorphines after exertion.

The puppeteer (evolution) has deduced that the optimal technique in self-aware humans to follow a course of action conducive to survival resides in those humans that link pleasure with survival needs... and so we have evolved.

And as for escaping - painfully - from the shark, this flight mechanism is not necessarily a conscious decision. And adrenaline is a potent painkiller.

[Stevil]

Is love making pleasurable or happyful?
What about eating chocolate or a delicious desert?
Or receiving a good massage?

There is a distinct emotional difference between pleasure and happiness

[Pharaoh Cat]

It is no coincidence that it is exactly these survivial requirements that offer the most pleasure - eating, sex, family bondng, endorphines after exertion.

A implies B.

A equals B.

Do you see that these two statements say different things?

[Siz]

That certainly does sound like your argument, but again you failed to address my contention: you can't tell other people what they find pleasing or why they decided to do things.

I'm not trying to telling people what they feel, I'm suggesting that we are all ultimately striving for optimal happiness when we make decisions, whether this is the primary or tertiary level of thought. ie, to use DJ's example, when you eat an apple it is the tertiary decision to 'sate my hunger' that is the foremost in the consciousness. The primary consideration of "what can i do to make myself feel happier?" may not spring to mind, but is the basis of the tertiary decision. Does eating the apple make you happier or sadder? Would you eat the apple if it was disgusting to you, given that it would also sate your hunger? It depends on the level of hunger, the level of disgust and the resulting pleasure/pain equation.
If you disagree with this, fine. Your approval is not required.

Decisions involving permanent damage are less common for my life, but risking permanent damage does usually rate pretty high over pain and/or happiness, though I know that with most permanent damage, I can still be happy.
Quote mining is not an admirable trait. Notice the last part I myself said. Loss of limb will most likely not affect my happiness because I can be happy with or without them, yet I still make decisions to avoid situations where my limbs are very likely to be lost.

Why? Is it because the inconvenience of having one less limb would make life a little more awkward and therefore have more of a negative impact rather than positive impact on your life? The happiness-quotient of losing a limb is somewhat less than the happiness-quotient of avoiding its loss.

Quote mining? That's a little unfair. I picked out this sentence because it was the specific comment to which I was referring when I was arguing over your permanent damage assertion, and subsequently on which you were contending me.

Please do explain how my decision to wear white socks is made to make myself happy over wearing black socks which would make me equally happy.

In this equation, the happiness-quotients of each decision is equal. But you've got to make a decision, right?!

This just sounds like circular reasoning here: you propose that people only do things to make themselves happy, these people seemed happy, therefore they must have only done things that make themselves happy.

On aggregate - Exactly! There're no circles here, just cause and effect. But it must be noted that it is the PERCEPTION of what will make us happy that is the deciding factor, not necessarily what will ACTUALLY make us happy.

[The Magic Pudding]

It is no coincidence that it is exactly these survivial requirements that offer the most pleasure - eating, sex, family bondng, endorphines after exertion.

The puppeteer (evolution) has deduced that the optimal technique in self-aware humans to follow a course of action conducive to survival resides in those humans that link pleasure with survival needs... and so we have evolved.

We all concede pleasure is important, but there's more to motivation than that.  Sex is nice but I'd suggest the actual pleasure reward isn't commensurate with the extreme extraordinary crazy lengths people and animals go through to get a bit.  The puppeteer is driving us hard and tossing us mere tidbits of pleasure.

And as for escaping - painfully - from the shark, this flight mechanism is not necessarily a conscious decision. And adrenaline is a potent painkiller.

Are we going to ignore unconscious influences on our actions, what would Sigmund say?
The mother who accepts death to safeguard her young child, well she's going to be dead so there's not going to be any reward of happiness.  I suggest evolution places an imperative in her mind which makes her act this way.

It's a complicated thing the human noggin, there's primal fears, desires, guilt, phobias, aversion, attraction, it doesn't work perfectly.  All kinds of decisions are made that make no rational sense at all.

[Davin]

That certainly does sound like your argument, but again you failed to address my contention: you can't tell other people what they find pleasing or why they decided to do things.

I'm not trying to telling people what they feel, I'm suggesting that we are all ultimately striving for optimal happiness when we make decisions, whether this is the primary or tertiary level of thought.

You're not trying to tell people what they feel, just what feelings they're making decisions for. You can't rationally do that either, that is unless you have some kind of amazing telepathic insight ability into other peoples minds... do you?

ie, to use DJ's example, when you eat an apple it is the tertiary decision to 'sate my hunger' that is the foremost in the consciousness. The primary consideration of "what can i do to make myself feel happier?" may not spring to mind, but is the basis of the tertiary decision. Does eating the apple make you happier or sadder? Would you eat the apple if it was disgusting to you, given that it would also sate your hunger? It depends on the level of hunger, the level of disgust and the resulting pleasure/pain equation.
If you disagree with this, fine. Your approval is not required.

So we make decisions for happiness whether we make decisions for happiness or not? This seems all too unfalsifiable, which to me is useless. Do you really consider a "decision" one is not conscious of, a decision? That is far too contradictory to what a decision is.

Decisions involving permanent damage are less common for my life, but risking permanent damage does usually rate pretty high over pain and/or happiness, though I know that with most permanent damage, I can still be happy.
Quote mining is not an admirable trait. Notice the last part I myself said. Loss of limb will most likely not affect my happiness because I can be happy with or without them, yet I still make decisions to avoid situations where my limbs are very likely to be lost.

Why? Is it because the inconvenience of having one less limb would make life a little more awkward and therefore have more of a negative impact rather than positive impact on your life? The happiness-quotient of losing a limb is somewhat less than the happiness-quotient of avoiding its loss.

Are you saying that the fewer limbs one has, the less happy one can be? So someone like Stephen Hawking who has lost almost all control of his body cannot be as happy as I can? Is that seriously where you want to take this? Do you have some kind of bias towards cripples and amputees?

Anyway, my happiness will most likely be the same with fewer limbs as it is now. There is also the possibility that one could be happier with the loss of limbs. Because I cannot tell whether I will be happier or more miserable with the loss of limbs, I don't consider happiness in my decisions.

Quote mining? That's a little unfair. I picked out this sentence because it was the specific comment to which I was referring when I was arguing over your permanent damage assertion, and subsequently on which you were contending me.

You changed the context of my comment and ignored the important bits regarding my contention which made it look as if my statement didn't cover that my happiness would still be attained with the serious injury. Quote mining matches, but either way, it was definitely taking my statement out of context.

Please do explain how my decision to wear white socks is made to make myself happy over wearing black socks which would make me equally happy.

In this equation, the happiness-quotients of each decision is equal. But you've got to make a decision, right?!

So you suggest that happiness is still a consideration to my decision, even when I know it doesn't matter? Wow, I must be a completely different person than I know myself to be. Normally I only consider things that matter to me and things that I can be sure about, but I guess I must submit to a stranger over the internet, who apparently has amazing Professor X powers, for what I make decisions for.

Just so you know, I've played this boring game many times before: I tell you I'm not considering happiness most of the time when I choose one option over another and you ask "why did you consider/choose that?" for eternity because I really don't make very many decisions with the consideration of my happiness. You'll most likely never accept that I don't as if you have direct insight into my brain and can watch over all my decisions to make sure that every one I make and have ever made has been in consideration for my happiness. At least that's how it normally goes and appears to be going here.

This just sounds like circular reasoning here: you propose that people only do things to make themselves happy, these people seemed happy, therefore they must have only done things that make themselves happy.

On aggregate - Exactly! There're no circles here, just cause and effect. But it must be noted that it is the PERCEPTION of what will make us happy that is the deciding factor, not necessarily what will ACTUALLY make us happy.

You haven't cleared up the circle, only seemed to make an attempt at making it unfalsifiable. I can make a similar argument that people make decisions for muffins, even if they don't know they are making decisions for muffins. No matter what decisions they think they're making, they're making them for muffins, even if it's subconsciously. Do you see how useless the kind of reasoning you're proposing is?

[Siz]

Because a thing is unfalsifiable does not preclude its truth. I'm not saying that this is absolutely the truth, it is a conjecture with which I choose to ally because it matches my perception of reality. I have merely argued my case. I am not so arrogant as to assume my own infallibility.

I will consider what you all say and revise my thinking accordingly if it fits with my reality. I expect nothing less from anyone else. If my perception of reality is flawed, then that's a cross I'll have to bare.

Thanks for your time.

Peace and happiness.

[Buddy]

I value my mom and my older brother. It's just been us three since as long as I can remember. My brother and I used to fight like siblings do on a daily basis, but now that he is in college, we spend a lot more time together when we can. He is going for a math degree to be a professor, and has a job at a tutoring place in South Bend. I usually tag along when he goes to work if Mom isn't home. He literally gets paid to help me with my math homework. ^^

Mom and I haven't been spending too much time together lately. She works two jobs now and is usually busy. I'm a little sad because Mom worked both jobs the 24, 25, and 26 of December. Even slept at one of them. I really feel bad for her, but in another year or so, I'll have my license and I can get a job to help with some things.

We are all going down to Florida during spring break, though. Super stoked about being able to spend time with them.