I'm not talking about maximizing pleasure or treating happiness as something which can be calculated. Happiness means long-term satisfaction rooted in flourishing and wellbeing. From what I've read, it seems to be the safest foundation since it's an intuitive, widespread, human inclination. However, it can be difficult to navigate without a solid worldview and it's an idea that's not as attainable for people living under authoritarian and/or impoverished regimes or otherwise contexts which make Aristotle's teachings ring tone deaf.
>>17279915No, because people have different understandings of happines, as well as how to arrive to said happines.One person's heaven is somebody else's hell.
>>17279915What if people are happy committing rape?
>>17279936Government appointed rape sluts.
>>17279928Eudaimonism doesn't have such a univocal understanding of what people should be and do. At best, it believes there are specific personal qualities that allow for flourishing but it emphasizes a personal equilibrium rather than any particular extreme. There's not much that could be hellish or even heavenly between demographics. At worst, highly literalist readings of Aristotle/Aquinas could strip them of cultural context and practical subtext. >>17279936This is essentially the argument Thrasymachus made and Plato responded to in various works. His rebuttal was that virtues which regulate one's desires and relations with other people are vital for happiness because a rational, peaceful life is necessary to exist as a singular, stable person. Rapists aren't happy even though they're fulfilling their desire to rape because people have other desires incompatible with being a rapist. That's not just in the sense of being physically achievable, but also spiritually coherent.
>>17279950>At best, it believes there are specific personal qualities that allow for flourishing but it emphasizes a personal equilibrium rather than any particular extreme.People would disagree about that equilibrium, some would even reject it outright.You're making the same mistake as Sam Harris in thinking that happiness, a very nebulous and fleeting concept, can be measured and has variables that can be controlled.
>>17279950>>17279957Also, there's a lot of people that would find happiness in excesses and deficiencies of your chart.
>>17279957>>17279965These are the issues that I think about a lot. How would you describe your own ethical worldview?>You're making the same mistake as Sam Harris in thinking that happiness, a very nebulous and fleeting concept, can be measured and has variables that can be controlled.Harris is an example of what I was talking about. His worldview is highly naturalistic, to the point that he believes the state of neurology itself is analogous to ideal goodness, rather than focusing on Being like Aristotle/Aquinas.
>>17279965It's simple. Everyone ideally has a right to freedom, so that means to deal with another person means to persuade, not to force. To force is to make another human less than human, for their personal reasoning is their tool of survival on earth. That way, no one is forced to deal with each other and those who want to can.
>>17280032How do you distinguish persuasion from force?
>>17280101No violence, deception or coercion. Respecting each other's reasoning. Consensual.
>>17280102>No violence, deception or coercion. Respecting each other's reasoning. Consensual.Cuck.
>>17280179I get that sentiment but you relinquish your moral argument against getting anally raped if you abandon consent. You could return to blatant hypocrisy but that is just admitting you have no place in arguing morality. You are cucking yourself out of becoming an independent great man.
