1.) Does "happiness" here mean, y'know, literal happiness? Feeling good? The usual meaning of the word that everyone uses? Or is it some technical other definition?
2.) I buy that literal positive emotion, literal physical survival, and generally "being a good and competent person" correlate positively on average, but I don't buy that they're identical in absolutely every case. When Objectivists talk about "the good" or "life" it often seems like they're switching between "what literally physically keeps you alive", "what literally makes you more emotionally happy in the long term", and "what's "obviously" nobler and more virtuous and what a good person would want." These are all supposed to be exactly the same, for everyone, in every case? No exceptions? I can't say "oh, I know this is supposed to be virtuous but it wouldn't make me happy and it isn't useful to survival, so nah"?
3.) Thinking of things in terms of "virtue" seems like the hardest and most distasteful part of the whole business.
"Drop the obligation to be a noble Nietzschean hero, just do useful and/or fun stuff" is an attitude I've found very helpful. Scowling haughtily and trying to "be" "good" is miserable and doesn't get anything done. If I have to do an unpleasant chore, thinking about how "virtuous" it is makes it harder, not easier. "Don't worry about how impressive you are, just do lots of stuff that seems helpful/useful/cool/interesting" is standard career advice for a reason.
Is there any practical advantage to *thinking* about the right thing to do in terms of virtue? If you'd rather just....not, what's bad about that?
Thanks Sarah. Really interesting questions. Some brief thoughts:
**Ok, here's where I start to have questions. 1.) Does "happiness" here mean, y'know, literal happiness? Feeling good? The usual meaning of the word that everyone uses? Or is it some technical other definition?**
It’s a refined version of the conventional meaning. It’s feeling good, but in an enduring, unconflicted, all-encompassing way. Think of it in the Greek sense of eudaimonia: it is the stressing the psychological aspect of human flourishing.
**2.) I buy that literal positive emotion, literal physical survival, and generally "being a good and competent person" correlate positively on average, but I don't buy that they're identical in absolutely every case. When Objectivists talk about "the good" or "life" it often seems like they're switching between "what literally physically keeps you alive", "what literally makes you more emotionally happy in the long term", and "what's "obviously" nobler and more virtuous and what a good person would want." These are all supposed to be exactly the same, for everyone, in every case? No exceptions? I can't say "oh, I know this is supposed to be virtuous but it wouldn't make me happy and it isn't useful to survival, so nah"?**
There’s not a switch in content, but there is a switch in emphasis. Moral justification depends on literal life and death stakes, but much of what morality is concerned with is the psychological conditions for survival. Most of our challenges in an advanced technological society are not with putting food on our plate, but in cultivating and maintaining our desire to live. (See, for example, Ayn Rand’s essay “[Our Cultural Value Deprivation](https://courses.aynrand.org/works/our-cultural-value-deprivation/).”)
Virtuous action is necessary for both: it keeps us reality oriented toward pro-life values, and it nurtures the self-esteem that gives us confidence in our ability to achieve values and allows us to enjoy the values we do achieve. One way virtues do this is by identifying an integrated way of acting in the world. If happiness is enduring, unconflicted, and all-encompassing, then you need a way of living that doesn’t lead to divided loyalties, where the achievement of one goal undermines the achievement of your other goals. And so if your values and virtues are rational, you shouldn’t have the experience of “I’m supposed to do this but it won’t make me happy.”
So there really aren’t three things here, but you can definitely have a different focus: on life or death, on the happiness that makes life worth living, and on the kinds of activities that lead to life and the emotional concomitant of successful living.
I’m discussing this in more depth next week.
**3.) Thinking of things in terms of "virtue" seems like the hardest and most distasteful part of the whole business. "Drop the obligation to be a noble Nietzschean hero, just do useful and/or fun stuff" is an attitude I've found very helpful. Scowling haughtily and trying to "be" "good" is miserable and doesn't get anything done. If I have to do an unpleasant chore, thinking about how "virtuous" it is makes it harder, not easier. "Don't worry about how impressive you are, just do lots of stuff that seems helpful/useful/cool/interesting" is standard career advice for a reason. Is there any practical advantage to *thinking* about the right thing to do in terms of virtue? If you'd rather just....not, what's bad about that?**
The more that your understanding of virtue has been shaped by religion, the more that this will appear to be the right view. But if virtues are formulated as causal principles for achieving values, then this conflict of “virtues versus values,” “what’s good versus what I want,” won’t arise.
I think there’s something right about an orientation toward life that is primarily focused on values—on doing “useful and/or fun stuff,” as you put it. But *how* you conduct yourself matters. It determines whether you do in fact achieve values and whether you can enjoy having achieved them. Self-esteem is a vital human need: you will pass a verdict on your character, and your happiness depends on passing a positive one.
Ok, here's where I start to have questions.
1.) Does "happiness" here mean, y'know, literal happiness? Feeling good? The usual meaning of the word that everyone uses? Or is it some technical other definition?
2.) I buy that literal positive emotion, literal physical survival, and generally "being a good and competent person" correlate positively on average, but I don't buy that they're identical in absolutely every case. When Objectivists talk about "the good" or "life" it often seems like they're switching between "what literally physically keeps you alive", "what literally makes you more emotionally happy in the long term", and "what's "obviously" nobler and more virtuous and what a good person would want." These are all supposed to be exactly the same, for everyone, in every case? No exceptions? I can't say "oh, I know this is supposed to be virtuous but it wouldn't make me happy and it isn't useful to survival, so nah"?
3.) Thinking of things in terms of "virtue" seems like the hardest and most distasteful part of the whole business.
"Drop the obligation to be a noble Nietzschean hero, just do useful and/or fun stuff" is an attitude I've found very helpful. Scowling haughtily and trying to "be" "good" is miserable and doesn't get anything done. If I have to do an unpleasant chore, thinking about how "virtuous" it is makes it harder, not easier. "Don't worry about how impressive you are, just do lots of stuff that seems helpful/useful/cool/interesting" is standard career advice for a reason.
Is there any practical advantage to *thinking* about the right thing to do in terms of virtue? If you'd rather just....not, what's bad about that?
Thanks Sarah. Really interesting questions. Some brief thoughts:
**Ok, here's where I start to have questions. 1.) Does "happiness" here mean, y'know, literal happiness? Feeling good? The usual meaning of the word that everyone uses? Or is it some technical other definition?**
It’s a refined version of the conventional meaning. It’s feeling good, but in an enduring, unconflicted, all-encompassing way. Think of it in the Greek sense of eudaimonia: it is the stressing the psychological aspect of human flourishing.
**2.) I buy that literal positive emotion, literal physical survival, and generally "being a good and competent person" correlate positively on average, but I don't buy that they're identical in absolutely every case. When Objectivists talk about "the good" or "life" it often seems like they're switching between "what literally physically keeps you alive", "what literally makes you more emotionally happy in the long term", and "what's "obviously" nobler and more virtuous and what a good person would want." These are all supposed to be exactly the same, for everyone, in every case? No exceptions? I can't say "oh, I know this is supposed to be virtuous but it wouldn't make me happy and it isn't useful to survival, so nah"?**
There’s not a switch in content, but there is a switch in emphasis. Moral justification depends on literal life and death stakes, but much of what morality is concerned with is the psychological conditions for survival. Most of our challenges in an advanced technological society are not with putting food on our plate, but in cultivating and maintaining our desire to live. (See, for example, Ayn Rand’s essay “[Our Cultural Value Deprivation](https://courses.aynrand.org/works/our-cultural-value-deprivation/).”)
Virtuous action is necessary for both: it keeps us reality oriented toward pro-life values, and it nurtures the self-esteem that gives us confidence in our ability to achieve values and allows us to enjoy the values we do achieve. One way virtues do this is by identifying an integrated way of acting in the world. If happiness is enduring, unconflicted, and all-encompassing, then you need a way of living that doesn’t lead to divided loyalties, where the achievement of one goal undermines the achievement of your other goals. And so if your values and virtues are rational, you shouldn’t have the experience of “I’m supposed to do this but it won’t make me happy.”
So there really aren’t three things here, but you can definitely have a different focus: on life or death, on the happiness that makes life worth living, and on the kinds of activities that lead to life and the emotional concomitant of successful living.
I’m discussing this in more depth next week.
**3.) Thinking of things in terms of "virtue" seems like the hardest and most distasteful part of the whole business. "Drop the obligation to be a noble Nietzschean hero, just do useful and/or fun stuff" is an attitude I've found very helpful. Scowling haughtily and trying to "be" "good" is miserable and doesn't get anything done. If I have to do an unpleasant chore, thinking about how "virtuous" it is makes it harder, not easier. "Don't worry about how impressive you are, just do lots of stuff that seems helpful/useful/cool/interesting" is standard career advice for a reason. Is there any practical advantage to *thinking* about the right thing to do in terms of virtue? If you'd rather just....not, what's bad about that?**
The more that your understanding of virtue has been shaped by religion, the more that this will appear to be the right view. But if virtues are formulated as causal principles for achieving values, then this conflict of “virtues versus values,” “what’s good versus what I want,” won’t arise.
I think there’s something right about an orientation toward life that is primarily focused on values—on doing “useful and/or fun stuff,” as you put it. But *how* you conduct yourself matters. It determines whether you do in fact achieve values and whether you can enjoy having achieved them. Self-esteem is a vital human need: you will pass a verdict on your character, and your happiness depends on passing a positive one.