The Ethics of "Deconverting" Someone

[borrofburi]

On Why "Deconversion" May Be Unethical

Which of us would say that we would believe something because it might cheer us up, or tell our children it was true because it might dry their eyes? Which of us indulges in wishful thinking, who really cares about the pursuit truth of all costs and at all hazards. Can it not be said, do you not in fact hear it said repeatedly, about religion and by the religious themselves that 'well, it may not be really true, the stories may be fairy tales, the history may be dubious, *but* it provides consolation." Can anyone hear themselves saying this or have it said of them without some kind of embarrassment? Without the concession the thinking here is directly wishful? That yes it would be nice if you could throw your sins and your responsibilities on someone else, and have them dissolved, but it's not true!

Video here, watch from 7:23 to 8:23: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJYZ8E777I

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

From The Demon-Haunted World, source: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/sagan.htm

So Hitchens and Sagan say. But I am not so certain they are right. Speaking from my own personal experience, atheism has caused me a lot of troubles. Being that happiness (long-term base-line) is my desire and goal, it seems it would have been advantageous to me to remain a theist, e.g. I would likely be doing better in school, I would likely have a girlfriend (possibly a wife) whom I care for very much, I would have a social group of "friends", my family and I would get along far better, comfort from my imaginary friend (comfort that I honestly miss, even if it were mere placebo), etc.

Whilst it is far too late for me (I can not simply choose to believe), the principle of "the golden rule", that is, doing to others what I would have done to me, says that I should not "deconvert" people, despite whatever ability I have to do so. Furthermore, "the golden rule" further dictates that I should do everything I can to turn people away from the truth seeking evidence based reason path that lead me so irrefutably and undeniably towards atheism. Indeed as quoted from Evid3nc3's latest video:

At this point he did something that I found both odd and intriguing: he started firmly and almost fanatically discouraging me from having this conversation with him.

"Let me just say that I strongly feel that it is most often a grave disservice to attempt to disenchant relatively young people regarding specific religious belief. I'm very happy that my wife and I were sincere and devout christians when we were in our 20s, and well into our 30s. That orientation focused us and served us well sparing us many difficulties that our non-christian friends experienced.

"It is not to your advantage that I go on in explanations along the line that I have been. For you, if you're generally happy with the religious faith that you have, it's probably very important for you to continue in it and not sweat the details. Ultimate truths aside, there is little to be gained by going from the religiously questioning frying pan to the 'oh so that's how it works' fire. Someone with your quality of mind is going to find the answers if they keep digging, but if you're comfortable in your faith, and especially if you enjoy the company of your fellow believers more than the company of non-believers, then please, just accept the subject matter the way it is being presented to you by your pastor or priest, and concentrate your efforts on your studies.

"I recommend you not worry about evidence, one way or the other, and concentrate on the rest of your life, career, family, or whatever. Sorting out religious teachings and history is a quagmire that can only disrupt your peace of mind toward your career goals at this stage of your life. I think that it is not in your best interest to know how I think, especially since you do appear to be able to grasp my explanations. If you find Schroder's explanations satisfactory to you, then stay with them."

Video here, watch from 3:48 to 6:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgLBLJE3P-c

Indeed it seems undeniable that the ethical thing to do is to allow, perhaps even encourage, people to remain in blissful ignorance, but I imagine there are those here that will vociferously disagree. But it does seem that the question is a difficult one: is it better to disillusion people and cause them all the pain that comes with that, or is it better to allow them to persist in untruth and the happiness that often times comes with it?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

So what you're suggesting, borrofburi, is that you wish you had taken the blue pill?

 

[Eidolon]

I feel similar about it honestly. While most of my friends and family aren't inherently religious there are a few whom are. Except in my case they don't know Im atheist. My friends who are christian are very devout and from what I have seen, would probably exile me very quickly if they knew, not so much that I didn't believe in god, but that Im atheist.

I don't go about changing my religious views on various social networking sites to atheist, or join a bunch of atheist groups because if I did it would probably upset them, and their friendship is more important to me than proclaiming my lack of beliefs. (I guess it would kind of be like rubbing it in their faces). I believe that belief should be personal, and I keep mine to myself. And even though my friends blatantly broadcast their religion left and right and say somethings that just make me face palm, I don't call them on it, I don't debate them, and I don't worry about it. While I think its ridiculous that when I ask them for advice, most of them just say go with god, and they will say a prayer for me, I guess its better that they are at least thinking about me than just telling me "thats too bad".

We can accept their beliefs, but for some reason, they can't accept ours, and that is even after jesus telling them too. I've really grown to understand that religion is not about being a better person and doing good, its a fan club, and if you don't like what they like, you are shunned. I just leave it be. I have friends who are atheist as well, so if I ever need to talk about evolution, or why religion is bullshit, I just talk to them instead.

 

[nasher168]

I don't have that much of an issue with plain old theism. I just generally live and let live, unless a debate comes up, in which case I make myself as heard as possible. There is no taboo against atheism here, for which I am grateful.
My big problem is creationism. If anyone says they believe God made the world, or even had some part in it, I tend to go for them, pointing out that God is by no means necessary.

 

[lonelocust]

I am in an opposite position, wherein atheism has greatly improved my life. While I did remain in some sort of new-age belief, or belief that there is "something", I eventually realized I believed this purely because I wanted to (I, frankly, want to live forever, or at least for much longer than 100 years or so,but wanting does not make it so), and then I ceased to believe.

The belief that death wasn't death, and that my consciousness wasn't a side effect of chemical reactions was comforting, and yet my life has been improved by not believing that. It was easy for me to want to give up when I thought this was not all that I had. "I'll do better in the next life" or "one day things won't be so hard" and things like that were easy to come by, and easy excuses for me to not go out and make myself happy and make the world a better place.

I've also just never been the "blue pill" type. I'd like to live until the end of humanity, to see what we will eventually find and understand. I'd like to one day know what other life is out there, what other sentient beings, and what they have found and understood and built. But again, wanting it doesn't make it so. And since it seeming terribly cruel to know that I'll never experience all the knowledge I would like to is perhaps the biggest reason I WANT there to be an afterlife, well, it clearly would be ridiculous of me to want false knowledge to shore that up. But that is me.

While the easy comfort of a life that doesn't need to be lived now isn't retrievable without purposefully deluding yourself, it sounds like you also miss the community and social aspects of religion, which are more attainable without compromising your intellectual honesty. Perhaps you could check out Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, or communities of the atheistic sorts of Buddhists. Religious community is not restricted to theists, and you might find part of what you are re-looking for in such a community.

In regards to the Golden Rule, it is somewhat dodgy in this instance, because how can one know what the other person would want? I wish fervently that I had been deconverted much earlier than I was. If I could go back and change it, I absolutely would.

To me, while I hold a religious-esque regard for truth in and of itself, the tipping point comes from the ills that religion has wrought. While theism for many people does no harm and is merely a warm and comforting blanket of untruth - and one that effects no one else, and thus in my opinion wrong of me to force my own truth-worshiping morality onto - fundamentalist religion is actively hurtful in so many ways. I personally find the possibility of de-converting possible fundamentalists to outweigh any feelgoods of which the deconverted benign theist might be deprived. (I could make further moral arguments from more utilitarian positions, but this is my thought process purely when considering the golden rule.)

 

[Aught3]

So what you're suggesting, borrofburi, is that you wish you had taken the blue pill?

Ha! I was just going to make a matrix reference, I guess I'll have to take the one about living blissfully amongst the lotus-eaters.

Right, two thought experiments to shed some light on this topic. First, imagine you are happily married to the man/women of your dreams. You are deliriously happy, everything is going well for you, but then one day you find your partner has been cheating on you the entire time. During the separation they end up with half of your money (which was all they wanted from the beginning). The question is; before you found out the truth where you actually happy? Have a quick think about the answer before you read the next scenario.

Okay second, imagine I hooked you up to a machine which allowed you to relive the best moment(s) of your life over and over again or created new experiences that constantly made you happy. Now and then I take you off the machine, in order to tend to your human needs so you can stay alive until you can be reconnected to the machine. The same question as last time; while living in the world of fantasy are you truly happy?

In order to be consistent you have give the same answer to both questions, but most people will have answered 'yes' to the first but 'no' to the second. These two scenarios are equivalent so you have to decide one way or the other. Those who answer 'yes' to both are invited to join the lotus-eaters forgetting the real world and immersing themselves in the short-term pursuit of ignorant bliss. Those who answer 'no' recognise that for true happiness; not only do you have to be happy, but it also has to be true. In my opinion the pursuit of true happiness is something worth striving for and sharing with others. If the person you are trying to deconvert is not interested in understanding truth, and prefers ignorance then it will not be too difficult for them to shrug off your arguments and go back into their fantasy.

It is better to grasp the universe as it really is - you will be truly happier for it.

 

[Josan]

If I had a way to make you forget your deconversion. To go back to an existance you now know as naive and delusional, without knowing you ever did it. Would you take it?

 

[jrparri]

...These two scenarios are equivalent so you have to decide one way or the other.
...Those who answer 'no' recognise that for true happiness; not only do you have to be happy, but it also has to be true.

(edit: oops, it helps if I read the whole post)

Elaboration:

In case 1, you are living: you are pursuing goals, building a life, dreaming of the future, and coming home to (who you think is) a loving partner.

The fact that your partner was in it for the money and was getting their needs met elsewhere in no way invalidates the reality of your experience. You still learned, you still loved, you still lost. Were you truly happy? Yes. A little pissed off now? Probably, but no need to regret the whole carnival because the main attraction turned out to be a sham (which you enjoyed anyway, btw).

In the second scenario, the experience is virtual; hedonistic even. You are simulating happiness, without actually accomplishing anything - without actually risking and losing and learning.

I guess what I'm saying is "true" happiness, even in the past tense, very much depends on what you can take away from it. There may be other differences but I can't articulate them atm -- maybe someone else can

 

[Aught3]

Hi jrparri, I enjoyed the response. It seems to me you where basically saying that as long as you are learning something valuable you will find true happiness, but when you learn do you have to be learning true things? Or is learning false things equally rewarding?

no need to regret the whole carnival because the main attraction turned out to be a sham (which you enjoyed anyway, btw).

But this could equally apply to the second scenario where you are living in a sham world but enjoying the experience anyway. There is no reason that being hooked up to the machine would prevent you from learning*, loving, or the feeling of loss when you are unplugged. You say the second experience is all virtual, but your feelings are still real. The machine does not reciprocate real feelings, just like your partner in the first scenario. If we made the machine simulate the cheating partner experience, would you not learn exactly the same lessons as if it occurred in reality?



*Ever learnt anything from fiction books, movies, or games? I have.

 

[borrofburi]

In order to be consistent you have give the same answer to both questions, but most people will have answered 'yes' to the first but 'no' to the second. These two scenarios are equivalent so you have to decide one way or the other.

Incidentally, I answered yes to both. I did however hesitate on the second one, but that hesitation was only that I found the idea of a machine actually making me happy to be impossible (we know quite well that working hard and being well connected to people you love is generally what brings happiness (long-term base-line happiness, not just "haha funny joke now I'm go back to being depressed and suicidal" short term spike happiness)), that a machine could provide this was implausible, but after I decided that this was a hypothetical and granted that in this hypothetical a machine could actually provide that level of happiness, then my answer must necessarily be "yes".

But even so, I disagree that the answer must be the same for both, but again this probably goes back to the idea that the first example is perceived human connections providing happiness, while the second is "just a machine", so I suppose that I don't fully disagree.

Those who answer 'yes' to both are invited to join the lotus-eaters forgetting the real world and immersing themselves in the short-term pursuit of ignorant bliss.

Short term? I said long term for a reason. Indeed there are plenty of religiously naive "deluded" people who are happy the vast majority of their lives, I don't know what long-term means other than that.

Second, and likely vastly more important, the whole point of this thread is: who are we to shove truth down the locus-eaters throat? Who are we to determine that the source of someone's happiness is not good enough?

Those who answer 'no' recognise that for true happiness; not only do you have to be happy, but it also has to be true. In my opinion the pursuit of true happiness is something worth striving for and sharing with others.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction of "true happiness". Why does happiness have to be "true"? It seems you've taken this as an axiom or assumption rather than from any rational standpoint. The most rational stance I can ascribe to it is that "false" happiness is unstable, insecure, and that people in general desire stable and secure happiness, not just happiness. But even so, it seems false religious-based happiness is plenty stable to pass any sort of "security" check on whether the happiness is desirable or not.

If the person you are trying to deconvert is not interested in understanding truth, and prefers ignorance then it will not be too difficult for them to shrug off your arguments and go back into their fantasy.

Let's take this thread even further: if someone desires truth, should we not warn them away, tell them that the truth is bitter and that they will be happier and better off if they put aside their detailed questioning and just accept it because they'll live happier lives? The key question here is and has always been: are happy deluded people not better off than unhappy people experiencing reality?

It is better to grasp the universe as it really is - you will be truly happier for it.

"truly happier"? What does that even mean?

If I had a way to make you forget your deconversion. To go back to an existance you now know as naive and delusional, without knowing you ever did it. Would you take it?

Wow, thanks for teaching me something new about embedding youtube (I didn't know you could do it off just the character identification).

But Cipher has a good point: what does it matter if the steak isn't real, isn't juicy, isn't actually tasty? How is the extremely real-to-you experience different from a "truly-real" experience of steak? If you think it is real and if you are happy, how is that different from reality?

Would I go back? I don't know. Fundamentally I value truth, even if my stated goal and desire is happiness. This is of course exactly why I ended up in this position: I found the most logically sound position. Would you go back? Do you prefer unhappy reality to happy delusion? Why?

This thread was meant to be far more about the ethics of deconverting people and not my own position... And in some ways that means it is almost a polling of others: how many here had their life worsen due to truth? Say, for the sake of hypothetical questions, it were 100%, everyone is worse off, does truth trump naive happiness?

 

[Josan]

Do you prefer unhappy reality to happy delusion? Why?

Why is happy reality so impossible?

 

[Aught3]

I'm not sure I understand your distinction of "true happiness". Why does happiness have to be "true"?

That's because you thought each of my scenarios would bring you true happiness my answer to each would be no. I'll try to clarify.

I think most people would agree that happiness is (in part) a subjective experience; the feeling of happiness or contentment. This can be provided in all sorts of ways: spending time with family/friends, achieving goals, taking mind-altering drugs, or being hooked-up to a matrix-like machine. Each of these can produce the feeling of happiness, even over the long-term. It may even get to the stage where the person continuously does these activities and thereby never considers himself/herself to be unhappy.

In contrast, I'm saying that happiness is both the subjective feeling of contentment and the beliefs that cause the feeling. The two scenarios I used are meant to illustrate that most people do not accept that the mere feeling of happiness is sufficient to be described as true happiness. Simply living in the matrix or in a drug-fueled haze is a sham experience of happiness because in neither case are you experiencing reality. The beliefs that you base your happiness on are false and therefore your subjective feeling of contentment is not sufficient to be called happiness. In order to truly be happy you have to desire the desires you have. A drug addict may desire more of their drug (to make themselves feel happy) but they would not desire to have the desire for drugs. Similarly, you may desire the support and company of a partner, but do you desire that the desire be fulfilled by someone who does not love you and is only out for their own gain?

You also made a good point about false beliefs being unstable and vulnerable to correction. Shattering the illusion of contentment can be painful, but I think it is worth it in order to attain true happiness. In my book the truth will always trump naive happiness and I can't bring myself to be so condescending as to assume other people are better off without the truths available to me. Beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. Having true beliefs is more likely to lead you to making better choices.

Who are we to determine that the source of someone's happiness is not good enough?

Who else could? My view of ethics, morality, right and wrong are all my own and I have to make the best judgments I can. We all recognise that people addicted to drugs or alcohol need to be helped. They may feel that they are happy in their stupor but our outside perspective allows us to see that they are not. If someone is deriving happiness from a false source of happiness there are two problems as I see it. The first is that the longer the delusion goes on, the more invested they become in their beliefs that there current beliefs are providing them happiness. The second is that when (if!) they realise that these beliefs are false they have a greater chance of sinking into a severe depression. The sooner the intervention occurs, the better. Someone could live their entire life pretending to be happy but I would rather that they truly were and I'm willing to bet that so would they. If it were someone I loved then I would want to get them off the drugs, I would want to unhook them from the machine, and I would want to persuade them out of false beliefs. I'm only offering the red pill, it has to be their choice to take it.

 

[borrofburi]

In contrast, I'm saying that happiness is both the subjective feeling of contentment and the beliefs that cause the feeling.

I don't see why. I also don't see that it changes anything, because "belief" is just as subjective as "feeling".

The two scenarios I used are meant to illustrate that most people do not accept that the mere feeling of happiness is sufficient to be described as true happiness.

So what? Most people are not rational nor logical, that they think there is a distinction between "real" happiness and "sham" happiness does not mean it's rational to do so.

Simply living in the matrix or in a drug-fueled haze is a sham experience of happiness because in neither case are you experiencing reality.

The problem with drugs are multiple, there is evidence to say they are not very good simulators of "real" happiness in that they stimulate pleasure centers, and that pleasure is distinct (in our brains) from happiness and contentment. They are also temporary, as well as highly unstable. All of these are reasons why drugs are a form of "happiness" to be rejected, without appealing to "it's a fake happiness" (whatever that means). (I also excised everything else about drugs, because, while we agree they are not good, I do not agree they are evidence that "fake" happiness is inherently inferior)

The beliefs that you base your happiness on are false and therefore your subjective feeling of contentment is not sufficient to be called happiness. In order to truly be happy you have to desire the desires you have.

What is happiness other than a subjective feeling? Why do you have to "desire the desires you have"?

Similarly, you may desire the support and company of a partner, but do you desire that the desire be fulfilled by someone who does not love you and is only out for their own gain?

I only reject the latter because it makes the relationship inherently unstable (more so than such a relationship already is normally unstable). If I were to get into such a relationship and never know, would I not be better off for it?

Shattering the illusion of contentment can be painful, but I think it is worth it in order to attain true happiness. In my book the truth will always trump naive happiness and I can't bring myself to be so condescending as to assume other people are better off without the truths available to me.

Why does truth trump happiness? And how is it condescending to think other people might simply be happy where they are and that to shatter their reality may be a great disservice to them?

Beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. Having true beliefs is more likely to lead you to making better choices.

What does "better choices" mean if not "bring you a happier life"?

Who else could? My view of ethics, morality, right and wrong are all my own and I have to make the best judgments I can.

Yes, your view of ethics are your own, but that doesn't mean you must force others to think a certain way. "Live and let live" may be the ethical decision. For instance, when someone asks me for help on their homework, I do not give them the answer, because I think such shortcutting would be a grave disservice to them, resulting in them not learning. In the same way, when a religious person comes to me and preaches how happy it's made him, I think that perhaps it would be a grave disservice to him to disillusion him, resulting in less overall happiness in his life. You could make the argument that it is unfair of me to think that he'll be happier with religion than without it, however that is not what we are really discussing at this moment in time (though it's a perfectly valid point regarding this issue).

If someone is deriving happiness from a false source of happiness there are two problems as I see it. The first is that the longer the delusion goes on, the more invested they become in their beliefs that there current beliefs are providing them happiness. The second is that when (if!) they realise that these beliefs are false they have a greater chance of sinking into a severe depression.

So the criticisms are addiction, stability, and disillusionment? I think your argument about reinforcement (I summed up as "addiction") is weak, not only because I think there isn't strong reason to think this "reinforcement" happens, but also that even if it does, so what? As far as stability, I admit that's a problem with so called "sham happiness", however I don't think it's necessarily a valid criticism of religion, which seems to not be going away very soon. As far as disillusionment, this seems to be the primary reason stability is desirable, wouldn't want to lose what is providing you happiness, but you take it further and suggest that the longer something provides you happiness, the more it hurts to lose it, which is certainly true to some extent, but again seems to only be a further reason why stability is desirable.

Someone could live their entire life pretending to be happy but I would rather that they truly were

Why? If they spent their entire life happy, what more can you wish for them? Also who said anything about "pretending", even drug addicts aren't pretending happiness (at least when they're high).

If it were someone I loved then I would want to get them off the drugs, I would want to unhook them from the machine, and I would want to persuade them out of false beliefs. I'm only offering the red pill, it has to be their choice to take it.

Drugs have inherent flaws other than being "fake". Why would you want to take them off the machine? Would that not be a disservice to them? I certainly would as well, however I think that want would be motivated out of purely selfish desires to have them back in my life, and that ultimately I think that the ethical decision is to leave them connected to this mythical machine that makes them happy/content.

If you are certain the red pill will make them less happy, is it not unethical to even offer it to them? Especially if you can't warn them of the risks it has (as morpheus most definitely does not)? I mean, I think it would only be slightly unethical to offer an arsenic pill to someone, because most people will simply know not to take it, but is it not vastly more unethical to offer them a pill that you can't even properly warn them the risks of, especially if they're already happy? The only gain they could possibly attain is greater stability in their happiness, but they're already mostly stable, and you are asking (even forcing) them to sacrifice their current happiness for, at best, *possible* happiness that is a bit more stable.


Something else I've just thought of: how much does it change things if religion is not the source of happiness, rather a delusion that enables easier pursuit of the loving relationships that we know so well *is* what makes humans happy?

 

[borrofburi]

Do you prefer unhappy reality to happy delusion? Why?

Why is happy reality so impossible?

I didn't say it was, was merely asking a hypothetical.

 

[Josan]

I didn't say it was, was merely asking a hypothetical.

Well, it seems to me that you assume most deconversions are a change for the worse. I feel it's often the other way around, at least for allmost all deconvertees I've talked to.

 

[Aught3]

Ok borrofburi, I think the first thing we have to do is realise that we are talking about two different definitions of happiness. Can we agree to use contentment for the feeling of happiness and true happiness for the contentment + beliefs that I'm talking about?

Drugs do provide a temporary high, but they can be taken continuously. A drug addict in their stupor is content; they have no other concerns about food, family, or their other needs. However, as you say, the addicts are not truly happy but not because the effects are temporary but because the experiences they are having are produced by a fake stimulation and aren't real. The beliefs on which they base their 'true happiness' are false.

Desiring your desires is a second level of happiness, happiness with who you are. If you fulfill your desires (e.g. for money, love, etc) you are content but if you desire to have the desires that will make you the most content, and you manage to fulfill those desires then you will be truly happy. You would not be better off in a relationship where you didn't know your partner was lying to you, you would be better off in a relationship where your partner actually did love you back. A similar answer to the example in the OP, if all that kept a married couple together was their shared delusion, then I doubt they should have been together in the first place.

Why does truth trump [contentment]? And how is it condescending to think other people might simply be [content] where they are and that to shatter their reality may be a great disservice to them?

Truth trumps contentment for all the reasons I have been outlining, facing reality on its own terms is the only way to obtain true happiness in your life. I would rather know the truth than live through my life in a dream-state. Not giving someone the truth is condescending because you are claiming that they cannot handle the truth. You cannot 'shatter reality', only falsehoods.

For instance, when someone asks me for help on their homework, I do not give them the answer, because I think such shortcutting would be a grave disservice to them, resulting in them not learning. In the same way, when a religious person comes to me and preaches how [content] it's made him, I think that perhaps it would be a grave disservice to him to disillusion him, resulting in less overall [contentment] in his life.

I agree that not giving someone the answer to simple homework questions is the best way to get them to learn, but this is not true of all questions. When people ask questions (like your OP) they want answers, I wouldn't say 'go and learn the truth yourself' unless I felt the question was incredibly simplistic. Additionally, if you saw that person making a mistake with their homework you would help them correct it, rather than remain with a false answer which could cause them to make further mistakes in the future.

Reinforcement certainly occurs in religion, there are so many repetitions of different ceremonies and prayers, plus the promise of a reward if you stay on the path. Also, the social pressure from friends and family reinforce the religious belief on a person.

Why? If they spent their entire life [content], what more can you wish for them? Also who said anything about "pretending", even drug addicts aren't pretending happiness (at least when they're high).

This almost speaks for itself, a drug addict could be perfectly content their entire life, so what more could you wish for them? I would wish for them an experience of reality, the world as it truly is, and true happiness.

It is true that I cannot warn someone exactly what will happen to them when they take the red pill. Who could possibly describe to Neo reality while he is still in the Matrix? How can you describe to a drug addict, the pleasures that they are missing? How can you describe true happiness to someone who is content with their life? As I said no one can be forced to take the pill, but I feel it is ethical for me to offer the better, happier, real life to them.

 

[borrofburi]

I wrote a very long and brilliant post (I do say so myself... (/sarcasm)), but I'm going to go back to the basics because I think our conversation needs them.

False long-term happiness: happiness and contentedness based on something not true, e.g. happiness based in mythic fairy tales, e.g. happiness a husband gets thinking his wife loves him while the wife does *not* in fact love him.

True long-term happiness: the opposite of "false happiness", i.e. happiness and contentedness based on something true, e.g. happiness a husband gets thinking his wife loves him while the wife *does* in fact love him.

Can we agree on these definitions, and if not, would you please say why, and please provide your own definitions?

 

[Aught3]

Yeah I can agree to that.

As a foot-note I would say that happiness can only be long-term, if it only lasts for a short while then you were not truly happy. But lets go with those terms, even if they are long-winded :lol:

 

[borrofburi]

Yeah I can agree to that.

As a foot-note I would say that happiness can only be long-term, if it only lasts for a short while then you were not truly happy. But lets go with those terms, even if they are long-winded

I would say that if it only lasts for a while it does not classify as either form of happiness, so yes, you would not be truly happy, but you would also not be "falsely happy".

I also propose that the terms be used in the forms "false happiness" and "true happiness", for the sake of efficiency. I will also note that "false happiness" has a very specific definition here, despite it having a much more general implied meaning in everyday conversation, and that these terms are, as you pointed out, only talking about the long-term happiness and that "short lived happiness" is not happiness according to our definitions and is not what we are discussing.

Sound fine?

 

[Aught3]

Yep agreed.