This topic reminded me of "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
Quite frankly, Huxley makes a statement about happiness being directly related to that of sexual gratification and one's health.
I don't think that sexual gratification is directly linked to happiness. Not sure if you were saying that this is something you agree with or not. But there are plenty of people who are happily celibate. Likewise I have considered the possibility of celibacy but have decided against it. However, when I do enter in a relationship I have made clear boundaries about the relationship. I am decided not to have sex before marriage, but not only that--nothing that even hints toward a sexual interaction. Basically, the farthest my relationship would go prior to marriage would be a kiss on the lips, closed mouth. However, I do not think that my relationship would be void of happiness at all. In fact, I think that knowing that I was with the girl because I loved her would be far more rewarding. So, not sure if you're supporting Huxley's point of view, but I seriously disagree. Sex≠happiness (I even know of a perfectly happy couple who didn't kiss prior to marriage. Not sure if I'd go that far, but I respect them for it).
Every person in the so called "Society" has possibly perfect health, resulting in life spans much greater than needed for the overall society. However, everything is directly controlled by the authority figures who not only lessen the intelligence of those in lower classes, but also condition people to be happy with who they are and what they do. I'm not saying we'll end up like this, but it is certainly something to consider.
Ah, this comes to the debate of "What is happiness?" Unfortunately,
Brave New World is just a book, so no one could say whether or not people in that situation would be happy. In fact, it would be futile to argue if this society would be good if the people were happy. The reason is that we have no clue if someone could be truly happy in that situation. So I feel like introducing
Brave New World only complicates the matter, as it would do us nothing to debate about a state of 'happiness' that may or may not exist. But from my point of view, keeping someone in ignorance may not affect their state of happiness positively (it may even be neutral), but should be avoided as much as possible. But I think there are times where not knowing the truth could be for the better and could be revealed at a later time. It's a tricky balance to keep.
Connecting that with this topic, you can see why health and happiness are so closely related.
Actually, I don't see. I'm not sure if you established a connection between the two. Not that I disagree or anything, I just didn't see you make the connection, so I'm not sure if this is part of your argument or not.
So, I tend to believe that Society is something that gives people structure and provide with them with happiness as a whole, instead of happiness pertaining to certain people individually.
Exactly. Too many people go around thinking "Well I'm perfectly happy doing this, even if it kills me!" I think those people are downright blind. If I was a parent and let my child play in the streets because he was happy doing it and didn't mind being hit by a car, I would be a terrible parent. Why? Because he doesn't understand the full repercussions of getting hit by a car. Likewise, people who do destructive things to themselves I don't believe have a full appreciation of what they're doing. I think they are likewise, blind to the real repercussions of their actions. They problem is that they separate the action of them, per se, doing drugs leading to a premature death. It is my belief that they see the two things as separate events and do not understand that one leads to the other. They may be angry or upset at dying early, but might not connect that to the fact that they did drugs. That is why I believe it is in the power of the government to protect people from this situation even if they don't understand it. I believe that the government should act in the better interest of the people regardless of whether or not the people agree. Sometimes what is good for a person isn't necessarily what will gratify them on the spot.
If order and structure don't exsist, then isn't that more counter-productive? Humans are as resourceful as they are allowed to be and society typically gives them the chance to do that.
More counter-productive than what? Than having order and structure? I guess, but I'm not sure that society gives people a chance to be resourceful. In fact, it seems to give some people opportunities and bar opportunity from other people--it seems to just make what happens in nature more organized, not necessarily better.
Basically, instead of someone not eating and another person having plenty, one person doesn't eat and the other person has a yacht. Not much changes, I think.
Pertaining to those who don't act positively to society, nuclear weaponry is created based on those fundamental ideas of society. Keeping order also implies security. In that case, I don't see nuclear weaponry as a backwards progression, nor do I see it as a positive thing to attack other countries with, but I see it as giving people a sense of security in their society and the fundamentals to keep them within the society or be threatened with the same thing they were threatening people with. People may be bright on their own, but together, much more can get done, even if it means more control from a governement in the long run. Factors like this keep people where the government wants them to be. It also moves things forward, even if most things seem like a mistep on the way to a greater overall goal.
I feel like many of your points here weren't proved or qualified. Why does nuclear weaponry give people a sense of security? You say it's because people want to know they have the same thing as what other countries threaten them with. What if we all just had swords? The same amount of security would exist. It's just that this 'security' could mean serious destruction while a sword has much more limited capability. I also feel like firepower is a mistake because it is something that anyone can use. But it requires someone disciplined to really learn how to use a bladed weapon or fight hand to hand. And in that training, one typically develops morals along the way. You may disagree, but don't step up to say something about it unless you have trained in the art of fighting--either hand to hand or with bladed weaponry. I have.
Now, I do agree that people can grow more intelligent together. The sharing of knowledge is integral to moving forward as a society. But with knowledge does come corruption. The farther a society advances, the more corrupt they become. I believe this to be because as things become less and less about survival, we allow our desires to roam free and do not keep things in perspective. After that the country seems to fall--some of my friends believe that's about to happen with the U.S.
And as for a mistake, or 'mistep' leading to a greater overall goal, I don't see a lot of qualification for this one, either. What do you mean and why does this happen? It
could happen, sure, but I feel like that's a very general statement that doesn't really help us here.
But as far as my views on society, if you haven't figured it out by now is that the government should act in the best interest of the people--regardless of what the people want at the time. The government acts for the benefit of the people as the parents act for the benefit of the child. In this way, I believe that the government does need to put some rules in place that a person would disagree with, but in the end will be better for them. To prevent people from self-destruction, I think drug laws are in place. It is the same reason why a parent doesn't allow a child to play with knives. So, yes, I disagree with total freedom of action. There isn't a real defense for that. It is unthinkable for complete freedom of action to be allowed.
.
