To a significant extent it seems to me to be a question of moral philosophy. But there are also practical objections—for example, I might have missed it, but I don’t see “regularly smoke opium” as one of the listed recommendations. As far as increasing happiness goes I hear it’s hard to beat heroin. Nonetheless most people who strive for happiness don’t go the heroin/painkiller route. I think this says something about the desirability of experienced happiness by itself.
Most people I know believe that heroin (and similar mechanisms) get short-term happiness followed either by long-term unhappiness, or death. So I’m not sure how much their avoidance of that route says about how much they desire happiness by itself, other than that it isn’t strictly more important than longevity. (The fact that unhappy people don’t always kill themselves suggests that as well.)
Of course, it’s tricky inferring causation from correlation. It might be that we believe that about heroin because it reinforces our predisposition to reject experienced happiness as a motivator, for example, whether it’s true or not.
Most people I know believe that heroin (and similar mechanisms) get short-term happiness followed either by long-term unhappiness, or death.
That’s the long and short of it, I think. There is no reason not to use heroin to obtain maximum utility (for one’s self), if one a.) finds it pleasurable, b.) can afford it, and c.) is able to obtain pure and measured doses. (Or simply uses pharmaceuticals.) The perceived danger of heroin comes from its price and illegality (uncertain dosage + potentially dangerous impurities), which often results in penury, and overdose or illness, for the user.
People also want “real” happiness, by which I presume they mean happiness resulting from actions like painting a picture, and not happiness induced by chemical… which is silly, since the two feelings are produced by the same neurochemistry and functionally identical (i.e., all happiness is ultimately chemical). (The perceived difference may still bother someone enough that they choose a different route, though, especially if they don’t realize they can just paint a picture… on heroin.)
Well, you’re leaving out any discussion of goals I might have other than pleasure, and how well heroin helps me achieve those goals. One difference between heroin use and painting a picture is that the latter case causes there to be a picture, for example, and I might value the existence of the picture in addition to valuing my neurochemical state.
But, sure, if I can do all the same stuff in the world as well or better while maintaining a heroin habit, then that’s not relevant.
I was hoping someone would bring that up. You’ve already given the same answer I would, though: it’s not necessarily an either/or scenario like Nozick’s “experience machine” concept, so it’s possible to have both heroin and pictures, in theory.
See my post below; I think this is due to a.) a misunderstanding of the nature of happiness (a thought that chemically-induced happiness is different from “regular” happiness… which is also chemical), b.) a feeling that opium is incredibly dangerous (as it can be), and c.) a misunderstanding of how opium makes you feel—people can say “I know opium makes you happy” without actually feeling/knowing that it does so. That is, their mental picture of how they’d feel if they smoked opium doesn’t correspond to the reality, which is—for most people—that it makes them feel much, much better than they would have imagined.
To a significant extent it seems to me to be a question of moral philosophy. But there are also practical objections—for example, I might have missed it, but I don’t see “regularly smoke opium” as one of the listed recommendations. As far as increasing happiness goes I hear it’s hard to beat heroin. Nonetheless most people who strive for happiness don’t go the heroin/painkiller route. I think this says something about the desirability of experienced happiness by itself.
Most people I know believe that heroin (and similar mechanisms) get short-term happiness followed either by long-term unhappiness, or death. So I’m not sure how much their avoidance of that route says about how much they desire happiness by itself, other than that it isn’t strictly more important than longevity. (The fact that unhappy people don’t always kill themselves suggests that as well.)
Of course, it’s tricky inferring causation from correlation. It might be that we believe that about heroin because it reinforces our predisposition to reject experienced happiness as a motivator, for example, whether it’s true or not.
That’s the long and short of it, I think. There is no reason not to use heroin to obtain maximum utility (for one’s self), if one a.) finds it pleasurable, b.) can afford it, and c.) is able to obtain pure and measured doses. (Or simply uses pharmaceuticals.) The perceived danger of heroin comes from its price and illegality (uncertain dosage + potentially dangerous impurities), which often results in penury, and overdose or illness, for the user.
People also want “real” happiness, by which I presume they mean happiness resulting from actions like painting a picture, and not happiness induced by chemical… which is silly, since the two feelings are produced by the same neurochemistry and functionally identical (i.e., all happiness is ultimately chemical). (The perceived difference may still bother someone enough that they choose a different route, though, especially if they don’t realize they can just paint a picture… on heroin.)
Well, you’re leaving out any discussion of goals I might have other than pleasure, and how well heroin helps me achieve those goals. One difference between heroin use and painting a picture is that the latter case causes there to be a picture, for example, and I might value the existence of the picture in addition to valuing my neurochemical state.
But, sure, if I can do all the same stuff in the world as well or better while maintaining a heroin habit, then that’s not relevant.
I was hoping someone would bring that up. You’ve already given the same answer I would, though: it’s not necessarily an either/or scenario like Nozick’s “experience machine” concept, so it’s possible to have both heroin and pictures, in theory.
Are pure and measured doses safe? What about the adverse consequences of addiction?
This seems reasonably close to reinventing fun theory.
See my post below; I think this is due to a.) a misunderstanding of the nature of happiness (a thought that chemically-induced happiness is different from “regular” happiness… which is also chemical), b.) a feeling that opium is incredibly dangerous (as it can be), and c.) a misunderstanding of how opium makes you feel—people can say “I know opium makes you happy” without actually feeling/knowing that it does so. That is, their mental picture of how they’d feel if they smoked opium doesn’t correspond to the reality, which is—for most people—that it makes them feel much, much better than they would have imagined.