My first thought in reading this is that this isn't the choice the we are presented with, and isn't likely to be. In as much as unnatural forms of artificial happiness are offered to us, I would say they are indications of the world liberalism has created failing to make us happy and the incessant drive to find technological solutions, that then lead to more unhappiness and loss of freedom.
You are going to read that, and wonder why I don't just answer "yes" or "no". The thing is that I think the whole question comes from a liberal, enlightenment way of looking at the world. Liberalism is based on self evident universal axioms. I think arguing these kind of "taking the logic to the extreme" edge cases only really makes sense in that kind of system.
Agreed, there is such a thing as taking even reasonable thing to ridiculous extremes. Perhaps this extreme proposition counts as such, I don't know: but then you'd suggested to me, earlier, that you might be agreeable to going back to being a medieval peasant (or at least that you might have been happier as one, had you not been encumbered with knowledge of what's possible today), and that's pretty extreme too; although sure, what I suggest takes it even further, much further.
I'm not trying to build a rational system based on some axiom of happiness.
That was exactly my point, as far as that idea of hooking people up permanently to hospital beds. You do seem to be evaluating feminism basis a single variable, happiness.
Like I'd said, I do think you have a point. It does seem reasonable to aim at greater happiness, and perverse to work towards bringing about a state of affairs where happiness actually dips. But what seemed reasonable to me, tentatively speaking, is that it might be a mistake to make this a single-variable equation. Probably it might be more reasonable to think of optimization across many variables --- and I guess it would be interesting to suss out which variables, but that there'd be way more of them than just the one, that seems kind of reasonable.
That's what I wanted to get your views on, using that example.
Seen in this light, perhaps the fact that feminism resulted in lesser happiness for women --- assuming that's right, that is --- isn't necessarily such a big deal after all, if this is seen as a multi-variate optimization issue, as opposed to a single-variable maximization problem?
I also think that it has the liberal flaw of reducing it to a very limited question of the individual. No man is an island etc... How is this fantasy drug utopia actually going to work? Who rules it? What are their incentives? Why would it keep all these drugged up mouths that contribute nothing alive? I am interested in practical societies, not intellectual utopias.
I reject the whole idea of the question.
I don't see why there'd be a liberal monopoly to limiting things --- aren't you doing the same by limiting this discussion on feminism only to happiness? (See the part immediately preceding, the multi-variate thing.) And I'm not sure in what terms you "reject the idea of the question", except maybe on technical grounds.
Clarificaton: It doesn't have to be some kind of utopia, with everyone doing this. It's just about whether you'd want to do this. So that the incentive becomes clear enough, and the economics of it simple: Like I'd spelt out upthread, if I would take over all your assets, then assuming even a more or less average level of assets, I guess I could hook you on for life using just a part of the whole, and keep the rest for myself!
Agreed, there's heaps and heaps of technical issues, as you point out. Would I keep my end of the bargain, as opposed to pulling the plug after pocketing your money? Would this even work, that is, in terms of maybe resulting in episodes of literal nightmares that you'd have to live through, that might make the whole thing a negative, net net --- and how would we even be sure of such a thing beforehand?
Absolutely, if your only objection is based on technicalities of this nature, then fair enough. But like I'd specified, in my original post, let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that such technicalities have been sorted out satisfactorily: so that what we're discussing is the principle of thing, not these practical details.
This seems to be a very materialist way of looking at things, which again is a function of the modern world. Besides that, it seems like what you are offering is a kind of death. The individual I am now would have to cease, and a new individual, with a new relationship to the world would be happy in my place. It sounds like a Philip K Dick plotline. If you are going to give me a technological labotomy, why not just kill me and replace me with some character in the SIMS who was set to be eternally maxed out on happiness? You could make it painless, I wouldn't even need to know.
I think maybe the mistake here is in the meaning of "happiness". Ultimately I want my children to be happy and fulfilled in their lives. I don't think a perminant drug fueled stupor is what I mean when I say I want them to be "happy". I think I'm more looking at happiness in the same way that in pre-liberal times "liberty" was seen as more closely related to mastery of oneself rather than freedom from all external constraint.
Ah, but just extrapolate all of this on to the feminism situation. That this is a multi-variate issue, was my whole point, that I wanted to explore via this example. See how you see a focus simply on "happiness", to the exclusion of "fulfillment", to the exclusion of "mastery of oneself", as something so ...unfulfilling?... that you say, perhaps rightly, that you'd rather be killed than submit to that. Might women not feel that exact same thing? That focusing so narrowly on "happiness" alone, to the exclusion of "fulfillment", to the exclusion of "mastery of oneself (across a number of areas)" might be worse than death even?
This is the kind of "maximizing human happiness" that Bentham maybe would have got on board with, but I wouldn't. I think I am suspicious of your utopia because it has to push so hard against nature. Effectively I would cease to directly experience the world, and would instead experience an artificial world. I think there is something inherently anti-life about building a society at odds with nature to that degree. Perhaps that is my article of faith here? I just wonder what other aspects of man and nature this ideal society that brings everybody intravenous happiness would have had to pass through to get there and how morally poisoned the whole thing would have to be? I disbelieve the utopia.
Again, perhaps my brief post may have been confusing, but I wasn't really talking about a wholesale utopia situation, with everyone doing this. (That reminds me, exactly, of this Olaf Stapledon scenario!) I was only talking about whether you would agree to opt for this, agree to have your near and dear ones also subjected to this, and without actively seeking their consent (because remember, the women of the past who'd allegedly been happier, hadn't been asked whether they'd like a happy coddled but limited life, as opposed to much fuller but possibly unhappier life ---------- always assuming that dip in happiness is caused, not merely correlated, and what's more inevitable, which itself is by no means given).
I guess I am more "no" than "yes" here. I think I am coming at this from a completely different place than the question presupposes. I think, as Paul2 thinks, that happiness was kind of a promise of liberalism.... so if the groups that are specifically targeted by liberalism to receive it's bounties get less happy.... then that seems like an indication of a possible problem.
Had that actually been a promise that liberalism was based on, and feminism? I don't know, actually. If that is true, if happiness had indeed been promised; and further if happiness were the only thing promised, or at least the most important thing promised; then I agree, that promise not having been delivered on would amount to failure. Like I said, I don't know that was the case: if you can show that happiness is what liberalism and/or feminism was/were (primarily) based on, then sure, you might have a valid case there.
Second, I think that happiness is important, in the sense I indicated before of wanting my children and grandchildren to have happy lives. I think if society changes in a way that makes my life less happy and more anxious than my parents, and my childrens lives less happy and more anxious than mine... then there is maybe something there that needs some serious thought. I'm not arguing that on the basis of axioms that you can do reductio ad absurdum on.
I plead guilty to taking things to extremes, and again, agreed that it is possible to take even reasonable things to ridiculous extremes. Whether that is what this is an arguable point: it might well be true that it is. But doing that, I mean using that thought experiment, kind of helps clearly make my point about a multi-variate as opposed to uni-variate equation, I think?
