I don't see why so many people base morality on happiness in some form or another...

yeah

It seems like the biggest thing one would need to accept in order to agree with your position is that happiness is the only directly perceivable thing that matters to people by its very nature. I think that's where I have a problem with it because many thing seem to matter to me by their very nature.

I'd argue that any else you value is valued because you implicitly or explicitly believe it will result in some form of happiness (keeping in mind that in this case happiness is sort of a cacthall term for good feels/the avoidance of bad feels). There are plenty of philosophers who dispute that, though.

I'd dispute that and say that I value learning even when it comes at the expense of happiness. I mean learning just seems meaningful so it's the meaning behind learning that outweighs whatever happiness I lose. For example, learning about a horrible event in history would make me sad but I would still be inclined to learn about it. So it just seems arbitrary to connect morality to happiness to me.

I'm assuming you've heard people say similar things to that since you mentioned that other philosophers have disputed that. Can you tell me why you think that's wrong? Also, I'd appreciate knowing some of the philosophers you're referring to.

But don't you get happiness form learning? If not from that specific event, then from having a more complete knowledge of history and knowing you're not sugarcoating the past by choosing to only study pleasant things? Of course, even if you do, that doesn't imply that you wouldn't value learning without happiness, but I doubt it. When people don't find joy in something like learning history, they usually quit doing it.

One of the strongest arguments designed to get around this kind of response is this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
The reason I don't find it convincing is the reliance on intuition. In the book, Nozick urges us to decide how we feel about the experience machine based on our first instinct rather than our considered beliefs about what would be best. That can be a good way to get at the heart of what people "really want" and get around the tendency to rationalize, but it can also allow our minds to ignore the nuances of the hypothetical and go with habitual biases. For instance, people tend to think of a simulated experience of something enjoyable as being less enjoyable than the real thing, because in real life this is almost always true. In the thought experiment, it's explicitly not true, but if you're going by "intuition" then you might fall into that bias. So basically, I don't think there is a good reason not to plug into the experience machine, provided it really is perfect.

do you think a moral society is generally happy, sad, or angry?

>But don't you get happiness form learning? If not from that specific event, then from having a more complete knowledge of history and knowing you're not sugarcoating the past by choosing to only study pleasant things?
There are things that I learn which contribute to my happiness like learning how to stay healthy. But when it comes to gaining a more complete knowledge of history, or even philosophy, I wouldn't say that it makes me happy. I'd say that I find it meaningful to learn. I mean I can imagine someone making the forecast that getting a more complete knowledge of history or philosophy would make them happier but in practice that isn't how it turns for to me. Even though I have realized that it doesn't make me happy it's still something I do because I find it meaningful.
>When people don't find joy in something like learning history, they usually quit doing it.
I agree to some extent. I think that I don't learn as much as I could about those topics because it makes me sad, so I tone down the learning a bit at times. But I think that just highlights how there are competing things which have intrinsic value to me. I wouldn't stop learning about things which make me sad to be as happy as possible and I wouldn't learn as much as possible and forego happiness.

Thanks for the link. I guess we already touched on the crux of this debate, which is whether or not happiness/pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable.

I don't know, what is a moral society?

one where everyone does the right thing and doesn't dick one another

now is that happy or sad?

I don't know what the right thing is so I can't know how that behavior would impact the happiness of the society.

>that isn't how it turns for to me
that isn't how it turns out for me*

If you don't know then why don't you accept my interpretation of it?

I mean you don't have any better idea of it.
I say what is moral makes makes society go to the peak of happiness. Such a opinion of course wins by default.

I think you're being silly now. I won't accept your interpretation because you haven't explained why what is moral makes society go to the peak of happiness.

You don't even know what morality is or why it you think it has no relation to happiness so you have no frame of reference. Unless you do, then I hope you can do the honor of telling.

You're basically saying that if someone says they don't know then they must accept whatever someone else says if they say they do know. That is silly. Someone in the position of not knowing should look for the why and not just the what if they are looking for the correct stance. And if they are just presented with the what, as you just presented me with yours, then they should ask for the why instead of just accepting the what.

But rather than research you are asking this board what the relation is so that means you trust this board to know and since you don't have any personal view of morality you don't have any method to verify or reason to refuse.

like
>student: teacher what does 2 + 2 equal
>Math Teacher: 2 + 2 = 4
>student: but I don't know what Math is

kinda like that

Morality is a spook

this is the only true answer

morals are just opinions.

The student response should be

>student: why

and the math teach should respond by explaining that numbers are symbols and so on.

In this thread I've asked my question hoping for "math teachers" to give me the why as the math teach should in your example.

>and since you don't have any personal view of morality you don't have any method to verify or reason to refuse.
That's not true. If that was the case then everyone should be accepting everything they hear on a topic they know nothing about. But that isn't what happens because we have methods, such as reasoning, that can help us to verify/refuse the "why" we are given.

be my math teachers, I am not only looking for a what I want the why

>But that isn't what happens because we have methods, such as reasoning, that can help us to verify/refuse
but you have no reasoning on morality either otherwise you would've given it already

Reason is a tool and I have been trying to use the tool of reason on the subject of morality in this thread. Just because I haven't found the reasoning for the correct position on morality doesn't mean I can't use reason to find it. You're making this thread go a bit off topic though, so I'd appreciate if you could tie this into happiness again.

>I can't find reason
>but I can use reason to find reason

your logic is weird and there's no way to find any reasoning towards it.

You're conflating the two meanings of the word reason I'm using and it seems like you're doing it intentionally at this point. To reason is to think of the logical connections between things and such, to find a reason to have found those logical connections. The act of reasoning is what I can use to find the reasons.

>to find a reason to have found those logical connections.
to find a reason is to have found those logical connections*

then what is your reasoning that morality and happiness are distinct things? I mean you don't even have a reason or to question or argument to debunk it. This making you look like one of those "everything is subjective, nothing matters" type of people.

Perhaps you should read what I said in the thread before you made your first post.

I am the one here continued through to here I'd appreciate it if you could respond to my last post in that discussion or any other post I made because the person I was talking to seems to have left.

also I need to clarify this
>then what is your reasoning that morality and happiness are distinct things?
I am not saying they are distinct things, I'm asking for the reasons behind the connection of those two things.

Which is fruitless since you don't have a perception on morality.

all historical theories of morality comes from one of three sources:

god
duty
happiness

Whereas god even if its existence was certain it's hard to show that god wants or even that it cares about morality and duty doesn't clarify what exactly what the person's duty is and why. Happiness is a natural positive emotion we are born with and makes the argument that morality is inherently positive, that following it makes you and others happy thus giving incentive to follow it, that causing sorrow and anger is inherently amoral unless it leads to happiness and therefore morality, and gives a basis or morality for people to follow

so if it's not the basis of morality than what is?

Much of the positions you either explicitly or implicit stated in this post I have called into question in my earlier posts. Please read over what I said in this thread before I started talking to you because I don't feel like repeating myself. If you take the time to do that I'd be happy to discuss whatever questions you may have after reading what I've said and reforming your questions.

The concept of a spook is a spook. Think about it, you are preventing yourself from doing or believing in something because Stirner-kun said it's a spook, and therefore bad

C. S. Lewis disagrees.

C.S Lewis is a C tier philosopher who would be unremarkable except he happened to be that and a devout christian/decent writer

Should we reject happiness and pursue something else?

By what I've read of the conversation, the alternative would be "meaning." The question is: is it that the value of meaning is the happiness it provides, or rather the value of happiness is its meaning? We could also ask: we want to be happy or rather to live a meaningful life?

People base morality on what produces happiness because moral acts tend to cause happiness and people confuse cause for effect. You are right OP, happiness itself is not a factor of moral significance.

One of the other anons has asked why one should choose to be moral if it doesn't cause happiness or what morality is good for. The answer is that one should choose to be moral to be moral. Morality isn't an instrumental good that is valuable for its consequences, it's an intrinsic good. In fact doing something moral because you think it will either produce pleasure in itself or for others devalues the goodness of the act itself because you are doing it for the wrong reasons. Morality is an irrational act in that to be moral or to do moral acts requires one to perform those acts without concern for their consequences but just simply because it is the right thing to do

>Man or Rabbit?
youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk

Morality is objective and absolute.
Thank God :)

That there is heroin chic af

Nietzche would say you have it backwards. A man who is happy will act morally.

I'm gonna go with rabbit.

What did you think morality was?
When you say something "should" be a certain way, or that something is good, you are implicitly stating that you desire things to be a certain way.
Happiness is the state of fulfilling desires, morality is a set of rules that, if followed, are supposed to satisfy those desires
thus, morality is based on happiness.

>When you say something "should" be a certain way, or that something is good, you are implicitly stating that you desire things to be a certain way.
The rest of what you said follows from this premise and I disagree with it. I disagree because the question of "what is moral" is different than the question of "what should be" and the question of "what do I desire". Tell me why the questions "what do I desire", "what should be", and "what is moral" all have the same answers because otherwise I don't see a connection between them.