Happiness and its reasons or the lack of

Thanks to ppl who commented on this thread. reply #50!!!

Wow, missed out on a lot by not posting for one day...

Allen, you say, "Happiness is not based on the process but the result of a process." I can see where your coming from, because this was what i used to believe too. However, now i have to agree with Ken. It is about the process, not so much the result. There are many ways to get a result for a dream, or something that makes a person happy. It can be given to you, or it can be worked for. But truly, could people be truly happy if something was given to them? If they hadn't worked for it? To use an example, that would be like Lebron James taking that shot that he made today to win game 2 without any of the preparation that he put into it. The chances of the shot going in would be decreased, just like the chances that a person will be happy with being given what they dreamed of.

Now, basketball fans all know the work that Lebron has put in through the years. This led to the increased chance of the shot going in. In the same sense, a person who worked for there dream would be more likely to be happy.

Now, i'll use a example that other people will maybe be more familiar with.
I'll use the dream of becoming famous in something like the NBA. I also have a dream to get into the NBA. It's like kenneth says, people have different reactions to what happens on a court. Now, i maybe feel the same as you when i score, because we've both played for years. However, lets say, one day, i was just laying around, not having played for many years, and all of a sudden, got drafted, i probably wouldn't go. Mainly because i had not worked for years, but also because i didn't play for a long time. I mean, getting to the NBA is probably the greatest honor for any prep ball player, but to do it without work? That just doesn't seem right

Ken and Lee, i'll read your post tommorow. Its 12 now, and im sleepy, can't think anymore

I guess I was too extreme..= = gan.

Thanks. Fiona and Ken for being so, penetrating. Now I have a deeper understanding.

AllenFang wrote:
Yes that is all true, however you have to keep in mind that what if the process of reaching happiness is a negative process. Also, if i suddenly woke up one day and found out i had the skills to play in the NBA, of course i would be happy. Thats like saying if i offered you 1 million dollars, you wouldnt take it because you didnt work for it. Back to the example of a negative process, if one day an African boy hadnt had food for a week and one day he finally recieved food from a UN soldier. Is the boy happy that through the proccess of the Un soldier coming and raping the african females or that the result of the UN soldier coming gave him food to survive? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that the "ego mind" speaking in Kenneths head?

First of all, a negative process is not a happy process. I draw support from my personal experience: To this day I do not know anyone who becomes or became happy by making themselves feel bad.

Second of all, Waking up one day with all the Skills of an NBA star or being handed a million dollars equates to an instant hollow gratification, what we're talking about here is a real enduring happiness. If I work for my goals, I get that real happiness; what's there to be proud of if you got where you are without doing anything? And by the way, "you wouldn’t take it because you didn’t work for it" you're twisting my meaning here and making assumptions, All I said was that I would experience more happiness working for my success rather than “achieving” my goal with no effort whatsoever, a million dollars would still give me a happiness to an extent even if it’ was a small one, there’s no reason not to take it. And also, getting one million dollars is not my goal, it’s not what I aim for and thus it’s not the same thing as you becoming an NBA star, unless your goal isn’t to become an NBA star? If so, I used a wrong example and apologize for any misunderstanding my assumption may have caused.

Third, your example with the soldier and hungry child doesn’t really fit with the context of my view. Here you are talking about the process of how the soldier got the food, not how the child got it, if you want to talk about the boy’s happiness, talk about he got the food, not how the soldier got it. And if the soldier just gave him food all of a sudden one day, that would count as a hollow victory, the boy underwent no journey to get the food, it was just presented to him, and by the way, I don’t think “raping the african females” would result in the soldier getting any food.

Also, I don’t quite get what you mean by that question about my ego-mind, can you explain that more clearly?

I'll admit though that I was being too absolute about what gives happiness, lee corrected me here, there is some result involved in attaining happiness of course, I just believe that more comes with the process.

"if it was the result of the process that mattered, everyone that has the same goal should have the same level of happiness"-Kenneth. Goal and results are very two different things. Goal is the place where you want to be at, or go to. Result is where you currently are. Therefore by sayng by saying everyone that has the same goal should hve the same level of happines is unrealistic.

I know they are, but I used the word “result” with the assumption that said goal was achieved, for the sake of making the argument simpler and smoother. I completely agree with you about what a goal is, but I think you're a bit off with “result”, as lee put it, “the result is the outcome of the trials undergone” it’s not where you’re at; it’s where you’ll be at. That last line “Therefore by sayng…happiness is unrealistic” was what I came up with using your principles, not mine, that was an example of your ideals put into active form.

joycechen wrote:
lemme get back to what you, Kenneth are trying to say. you say that refusing to pick a side is different from saying he shouldnt die (and this might result in the thousand dying).

Yes, that’s what I’m saying, I choose not to play, because I don’t have the right to condemn any one to death, I don’t have the right to decide anyone’s fate. I will if pressed by circumstances or by knowledge of the identities of these people however. Say, if the one man was a criminal, and the thousand were decent people, then yes I would trade that one life for a thousand. But given no details about who I am about to kill, I would walk away. The result may be the same, by choosing to walk away the thousand will die because I did not kill the person, but I did not condemn them to death. I had a discussion with lee about this face to face, went on for about an hour and we didn’t really get anywhere so I can’t reply his post as of yet.

Fionaaa wrote:To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all"
- Elie Wiesel, survivor of the Holocaust

No, I am not being indifferent in choosing to not play, I mention a bit of this in what I said to joyce above. People who are indifferent would either truly not care about whether these people live or die, or they choose not to get involved because of their fear of the consequences that would follow their choice, namely guilt, most people are indifferent because of the latter. I however, am choosing not to kill anyone because I don’t believe that I have the right to decide anyone’s fate, I am not running away, I am making a stand. But like I said to joyce, depending on how unbalanced the circumstances are, I most probably will choose to kill either group; my moral sense would compel me to save those who I believe deserve to live.

The power to choose a person’s fate is enormous and carries a heavy responsibility, I don’t have the right to this power and can not and should not wield it unless extreme circumstances called for it. Consider this power if you ever find yourself faced with a situation like this.

I think happiness comes from the recognition of one's efforts in achieveing something aswell as the end result of that effort. i think one can still be happy at the end of the day even if the journey towards that goal or ideal has been a negative, unhappy, tiresome one. because in the end, you can still feel that sense of accomplishment and therefore happiness in the knowing that you have worked with all your might for this one goal and dream of yours. and it doesnt matter where it has gotten you, or whether or not you have succeeded in gaining what you want. because ultimately, you are one step (if not a lot of steps) closer to that goal or dream than when you first started out. you might not have achieved the idealistic state but you are closer to it by setting this up as your goal and working for it. therefore, when you reflect back on this process, you will still find it worthwhile given all the hardships that you had to endure along the way. i think it is a part of human nature to have the tendency to forget the bad things and to mostly remember the good parts of a journey towards a goal. I think the bad parts will affect you at the time, and may affect your determination towards that goal or dream. But in the end, the good memories last longer and count for more when one reflects back on the processes of achieveing this dream.
For example, (only because you guys just had to get onto the topic of basketball ) if JT becomes a NBA star in the future (according to his dream), he would most likely remember the good parts of the processes of this journey. Such as which games he won, who he played with, and which difficult opponents he won against in a game or something liek that. Of course he will remember that he hurt his knee 7 times during the process and it swelled to become 3 times the size of his other knee...etc.etc.etc. but the good memories usually stay longer and have more impact. (from personal experience and from listening to other peoples experiences)
So I think that both the process and the end result can make a person feel happy. It doesnt matter whehter the journey itself was difficult or not, because when you arrive at the end of the journey and reflect back, you will see that the good memories are the ones that stand out and can make you feel proud and joyful at your own accomplishments whereever the result might take you ^^

Kenny wrote:Yes, that’s what I’m saying, I choose not to play, because I don’t have the right to condemn any one to death, I don’t have the right to decide anyone’s fate. I will if pressed by circumstances or by knowledge of the identities of these people however. Say, if the one man was a criminal, and the thousand were decent people, then yes I would trade that one life for a thousand. But given no details about who I am about to kill, I would walk away. The result may be the same, by choosing to walk away the thousand will die because I did not kill the person, but I did not condemn them to death. I had a discussion with lee about this face to face, went on for about an hour and we didn’t really get anywhere so I can’t reply his post as of yet.

Once you were given the option of either saving the thousand by killing only one person, there is no walking away. You either choose to kill that man or you don't. There is no way out of it. Once you are involved, then you can't go out. The only way you could be considered innocent is if you weren't involved in the situation to begin with, but seeing as you were, then there will be blood on your hands no matter what. You can say that you "don't believe you have the right to alter someone's fate" all you want but the fact remains that you let them die. Like I said earlier, you might not have dealt the death blow, you might not have been the one to condemn the people to the fate of death but the fact that you had the chance to prevent that from happening but choose not makes you guilty. And no, saying "arguably guilty as killing them" is not pussyfooting around. And don't turn around and say I'm being too black and white, because you've made much more than your fair share of black and white judgements as well as "pussyfooting" statements yourself.

No, I am not being indifferent in choosing to not play, I mention a bit of this in what I said to joyce above. People who are indifferent would either truly not care about whether these people live or die, or they choose not to get involved because of their fear of the consequences that would follow their choice, namely guilt, most people are indifferent because of the latter. I however, am choosing not to kill anyone because I don’t believe that I have the right to decide anyone’s fate, I am not running away, I am making a stand. But like I said to joyce, depending on how unbalanced the circumstances are, I most probably will choose to kill either group; my moral sense would compel me to save those who I believe deserve to live.

People who are indifferent don't care whether these people live or die, as you say, but your latter definition is wrong. If I am indifferent to someone's death, then how do I feel guilt? Indifference does not result from a fear of guilt. Indifference results from no guilt at all. What you are essentially arguing here is that 1 is equl to 2, and obviously it isn't. Also, going with your reasoning about how people choose not to act out of fear of guilty, wouldn't not making a choice and letting a thousand people die even worse than killing one person? Your logic is ummm, not too logical here.

Your moral sense would compel you to save those who you DESERVE to live? Does that not imply judgement, a similar judgement that comes along with altering people's fate, something you said you didn't do because you felt you didn't have the right to? And now you say that you will kill someone to save the people you deserve to live. So now all of a sudden you feel you have the right to not just alter someone's fate but condemn them to death? Hrm.

The power to choose a person’s fate is enormous and carries a heavy responsibility, I don’t have the right to this power and can not and should not wield it unless extreme circumstances called for it. Consider this power if you ever find yourself faced with a situation like this.

So I assume an extreme circumstance would be like "Oh hey my good friend Bob is in that group of 1000 and so is Joe. I better kill off whoever that random schmuck is to save my buddies."

Vincent_Lee wrote:
Once you were given the option of either saving the thousand by killing only one person, there is no walking away. You either choose to kill that man or you don't. There is no way out of it. Once you are involved, then you can't go out. The only way you could be considered innocent is if you weren't involved in the situation to begin with, but seeing as you were, then there will be blood on your hands no matter what. You can say that you "don't believe you have the right to alter someone's fate" all you want but the fact remains that you let them die. Like I said earlier, you might not have dealt the death blow, you might not have been the one to condemn the people to the fate of death but the fact that you had the chance to prevent that from happening but choose not makes you guilty. And no, saying "arguably guilty as killing them" is not pussyfooting around. And don't turn around and say I'm being too black and white, because you've made much more than your fair share of black and white judgements as well as "pussyfooting" statements yourself.

Think of it this way, the man in charge of the game approaches me with this proposal, Either I choose “one man dies” or I choose “a thousand die.” Now I say, “No, I don’t choose.” I’m not trying to get out of anything by making that decision, I’m not denying the reality of the situation or trying to escape from it. I’m still a player in the game, I’m just not making any moves. I’m am not guilty for any deaths I didn’t cause to happen, the deaths that would happen are a result of the action of the game, not the action of the player if the player chooses not to play.

And yes, saying “arguably guilty as killing them” IS pussyfooting, if you’re going to argue, stick to what you believe, not what the general public believe, say what your stance is outright, we’re debating our personal opinions here. Comprendez?

Oh, one more thing, I am still human, and while I know that this is no excuse for making black and white statements, I still make them, I try not to make mistakes, but they still happen, if you think this is still enough merit for me to be a hypocrite then sure, but even if I am, that doesn’t diminish the fact that you have made black and white comments yourself, I’m pointing them out to use them against you as much as you would against me. Hypocrite or no, I can still criticize your mistakes if I want. Me being a hypocrite does not justify the mistakes you make.

People who are indifferent don't care whether these people live or die, as you say, but your latter definition is wrong. If I am indifferent to someone's death, then how do I feel guilt? Indifference does not result from a fear of guilt. Indifference results from no guilt at all. What you are essentially arguing here is that 1 is equl to 2, and obviously it isn't. Also, going with your reasoning about how people choose not to act out of fear of guilty, wouldn't not making a choice and letting a thousand people die even worse than killing one person? Your logic is ummm, not too logical here.

Okay, yes, my latter definition was wrong now that you point it out I do see it, I was rather caught up with defending myself and thus tried to add in a bit of a contrast that unfortunately didn’t make sense. Forgive me for not being as knowing as you in the ways of a wordsmith.

What I meant by the guilt thing, is that they wouldn’t want to take any guilt at all, killing a thousand may leave you more guilt that killing one, but either way, you will feel guilt, what I said was that some people just don’t want take either because they don’t want any guilt at all. I don’t see what’s so illogical about that.

Your moral sense would compel you to save those who you DESERVE to live? Does that not imply judgement, a similar judgement that comes along with altering people's fate, something you said you didn't do because you felt you didn't have the right to? And now you say that you will kill someone to save the people you deserve to live. So now all of a sudden you feel you have the right to not just alter someone's fate but condemn them to death? Hrm.

Obviously my belief in not altering someone’s fate is not the only one I have. Sentimentality on my part will almost always override that particular belief. The fact that I believe in something doesn’t mean that I will act on it every single time, there are other factors such as whether or not I know the people that are a part of the options. In general I would rather not choose who to kill and walk away, but if there are loved ones involved then obviously my emotion would override any protests I have over not choosing people’s fates. If you or any of my other friends were in that thousand and the one man was a complete stranger, I would kill him, if you or any of my friends were the one person and the thousand were complete strangers I would kill the thousand. My actions are not completely governed by that one principle I have, nor are they governed by a single principle, each one has its influence, none have complete power.

So I assume an extreme circumstance would be like "Oh hey my good friend Bob is in that group of 1000 and so is Joe. I better kill off whoever that random schmuck is to save my buddies."

Yes.


@Fiona
Sure, I’m not saying it definitively, I’m suggesting the possibility. Perhaps the whole matter of essence and whatnot is actually the result of intelligent design, all I know is that we are incapable of knowing everything in the world and so we may never even come near to the truth of our existence. Or sure, maybe essence really is just spontaneous and pure potential, maybe it follows no rules and anyone that tries to classify it or understand it is oversimplifying things and going in the wrong direction. Maybe I’m wrong to assume anything about essence, maybe my suggestions and hypothesis don’t make a difference. On some level it may make sense that everything is a result of intelligent design but on another level it may be complete nonsense, hard to tell with these kinds of things.

Kenny wrote:Think of it this way, the man in charge of the game approaches me with this proposal, Either I choose “one man dies” or I choose “a thousand die.” Now I say, “No, I don’t choose.” I’m not trying to get out of anything by making that decision, I’m not denying the reality of the situation or trying to escape from it. I’m still a player in the game, I’m just not making any moves. I’m am not guilty for any deaths I didn’t cause to happen, the deaths that would happen are a result of the action of the game, not the action of the player if the player chooses not to play.

I'll repost what I said in regards to that because it seems you're not understanding my logic.

Vincent_Lee wrote:Once you were given the option of either saving the thousand by killing only one person, there is no walking away. You either choose to kill that man or you don't. There is no way out of it. Once you are involved, then you can't go out. The only way you could be considered innocent is if you weren't involved in the situation to begin with, but seeing as you were, then there will be blood on your hands no matter what. You can say that you "don't believe you have the right to alter someone's fate" all you want but the fact remains that you let them die. Like I said earlier, you might not have dealt the death blow, you might not have been the one to condemn the people to the fate of death but the fact that you had the chance to prevent that from happening but choose not makes you guilty.

And life is a game, there's no true way to break out of it unless you well, kill yourself.

And yes, saying “arguably guilty as killing them” IS pussyfooting, if you’re going to argue, stick to what you believe, not what the general public believe, say what your stance is outright, we’re debating our personal opinions here. Comprendez?

And in what instance am I not sticking to what I believe in or going along with the status quo? Am I turning around and retracting my statements? Unless I'm schizophrenic, have dissoaciative personality disorder or some other mental disorder, I think the answer would be no. I think my stance is pretty outright. Anyways, I say "arguably guilty" because that statement is very much arguable. If you interpret that as pussyfooting, then I can only say you're overreacting a bit and going maybe more than just a bit black and white.

Oh, one more thing, I am still human, and while I know that this is no excuse for making black and white statements, I still make them, I try not to make mistakes, but they still happen, if you think this is still enough merit for me to be a hypocrite then sure, but even if I am, that doesn’t diminish the fact that you have made black and white comments yourself, I’m pointing them out to use them against you as much as you would against me. Hypocrite or no, I can still criticize your mistakes if I want. Me being a hypocrite does not justify the mistakes you make.

Mhm, because surely I was desperately trying to justify my mistakes in pointing out your hypocrisy and saying you couldn't comment on my mistakes because of your hypocrisy. Overreact much? And since you apparently put so much effort into this retort, I was wondering if you could go that extra mile and point out where my black and white comments are.

Okay, yes, my latter definition was wrong now that you point it out I do see it, I was rather caught up with defending myself and thus tried to add in a bit of a contrast that unfortunately didn’t make sense. Forgive me for not being as knowing as you in the ways of a wordsmith.

I'm glad to see you're admitting your mistakes now, though I suppose you still have a ways to go when it comes to not having to throw in sarcastic remarks. I mean, wouldn't that statement look much nicer without that last bit? In that respect, I don't think I'm the one who's struggling with admitting my mistakes here.

What I meant by the guilt thing, is that they wouldn’t want to take any guilt at all, killing a thousand may leave you more guilt that killing one, but either way, you will feel guilt, what I said was that some people just don’t want take either because they don’t want any guilt at all. I don’t see what’s so illogical about that.

Um, I think the guilt over being responsible for the death of 1000 would be significantly worse than the guilt over killing one. And your other statement only applies if they can completely detach themselves from responsibility as you can. I know how you'll respond to that one, so I'll invite someone else and see if they can refuse responsibility as easily.

Obviously my belief in not altering someone’s fate is not the only one I have. Sentimentality on my part will almost always override that particular belief. The fact that I believe in something doesn’t mean that I will act on it every single time, there are other factors such as whether or not I know the people that are a part of the options. In general I would rather not choose who to kill and walk away, but if there are loved ones involved then obviously my emotion would override any protests I have over not choosing people’s fates. If you or any of my other friends were in that thousand and the one man was a complete stranger, I would kill him, if you or any of my friends were the one person and the thousand were complete strangers I would kill the thousand. My actions are not completely governed by that one principle I have, nor are they governed by a single principle, each one has its influence, none have complete power.

Vincent_Lee wrote:So I assume an extreme circumstance would be like "Oh hey my good friend Bob is in that group of 1000 and so is Joe. I better kill off whoever that random schmuck is to save my buddies."

Kenny wrote:Yes.

Hrm. Alright then. Just keep in mind you said this.

Kenny wrote:Say you have to kill one to save a thousand, that's just wrong, the whole "greater good" propaganda is crap, no one has any say in deciding anyone's fate

A friendly reminder.

Vincent_Lee wrote:
I'll repost what I said in regards to that because it seems you're not understanding my logic.

Well, then, help me understand your logic, I find it rather hard to figure out what your logic is on that part of the matter.

And life is a game, there's no true way to break out of it unless you well, kill yourself.

You haven’t taken in enough of what I said, I clearly state that I’m not trying to break out of anything, I’m just choosing not to play.

And in what instance am I not sticking to what I believe in or going along with the status quo? Am I turning around and retracting my statements? Unless I'm schizophrenic, have dissoaciative personality disorder or some other mental disorder, I think the answer would be no. I think my stance is pretty outright. Anyways, I say "arguably guilty" because that statement is very much arguable. If you interpret that as pussyfooting, then I can only say you're overreacting a bit and going maybe more than just a bit black and white.

Obviously the statement is arguable or we would not be arguing about it. What’s the point of telling me that it’s arguable then, of course I know it’s arguable. I know you aren’t stupid enough to tell me that because you think I don’t know and therefore I’d infer that there was some other motive, namely pussyfooting because you don’t state your opinion outright, instead you choose to hide behind that phrase, telling me that my statement was…arguable. If you think it’s wrong, tell me it’s wrong, don’t tell me it’s arguable. I want a solid answer on this, if you have no stance, there is no debate.

Mhm, because surely I was desperately trying to justify my mistakes in pointing out your hypocrisy and saying you couldn't comment on my mistakes because of your hypocrisy. Overreact much? And since you apparently put so much effort into this retort, I was wondering if you could go that extra mile and point out where my black and white comments are.

Then why mention it? Why defend yourself? If I accuse you of being black and white and you decide to answer that with, “so are you” don’t you think I’d be inclined to think that something was up? Who’s overreacting here, I point out your mistakes and you respond by telling me I make the same mistakes, that’s as good as calling me a hypocrite, because in your response to my criticism I hear a defensive, retaliatory tone.

I'm glad to see you're admitting your mistakes now, though I suppose you still have a ways to go when it comes to not having to throw in sarcastic remarks. I mean, wouldn't that statement look much nicer without that last bit? In that respect, I don't think I'm the one who's struggling with admitting my mistakes here.

“Your logic is ummm, not too logical here.” Remind you of anyone? If you want me to play it clean, try and do the same. You aren’t struggling with admitting anything because you haven’t, all I see is you taking jabs at the mistakes I make.

Kenny wrote:What I meant by the guilt thing, is that they wouldn’t want to take any guilt at all, killing a thousand may leave you more guilt that killing one, but either way, you will feel guilt, what I said was that some people just don’t want take either because they don’t want any guilt at all. I don’t see what’s so illogical about that.

Um, I think the guilt over being responsible for the death of 1000 would be significantly worse than the guilt over killing one. And your other statement only applies if they can completely detach themselves from responsibility as you can. I know how you'll respond to that one, so I'll invite someone else and see if they can refuse responsibility as easily.

You’re not getting what I mean here, the answer you give to this part of my post doesn’t even pertain to what I was talking about, I said that you misunderstood me with the guilt, It’s not a matter of how the strength of the guilt compares, it’s a matter of whether or not the presence of the guilt is there or not.

Kenny wrote:Say you have to kill one to save a thousand, that's just wrong, the whole "greater good" propaganda is crap, no one has any say in deciding anyone's fate

A friendly reminder.

Yes that’s right, it’s wrong, but sometimes, you have to do things that are wrong, something being wrong doesn’t restrict anyone from doing it. Most people who commit crimes know that it’s wrong, they still do it, usually because it is necessary.

Kenny wrote:Well, then, help me understand your logic, I find it rather hard to figure out what your logic is on that part of the matter.

Read my post again and let's hear what you don't understand.

You haven’t taken in enough of what I said, I clearly state that I’m not trying to break out of anything, I’m just choosing not to play.

Fine. Let me rephrase it. "Life is a game. You can't choose not to play."

Then why mention it? Why defend yourself? If I accuse you of being black and white and you decide to answer that with, “so are you” don’t you think I’d be inclined to think that something was up? Who’s overreacting here, I point out your mistakes and you respond by telling me I make the same mistakes, that’s as good as calling me a hypocrite, because in your response to my criticism I hear a defensive, retaliatory tone.

That's understandable, although you have yet to point out what my specific mistakes are. You've completely ignored this

Anyways, I say "arguably guilty" because that statement is very much arguable.

kenny wrote: “Your logic is ummm, not too logical here.” Remind you of anyone? If you want me to play it clean, try and do the same. You aren’t struggling with admitting anything because you haven’t, all I see is you taking jabs at the mistakes I make.

I'm not asking you to play it clean, just accept defeat graciously when it comes. You can expect me to do the same when you point out my mistakes. Still waiting for that though.

You’re not getting what I mean here, the answer you give to this part of my post doesn’t even pertain to what I was talking about, I said that you misunderstood me with the guilt, It’s not a matter of how the strength of the guilt compares, it’s a matter of whether or not the presence of the guilt is there or not.

And like I stated, there will always be guilt unless the person is able to completely detach from the responsibility and say to himself "I have nothing to do with it, I have no responsibility whatsoever, and the people's death are not my fault in anyw way" and agree with it 100%.

Yes that’s right, it’s wrong, but sometimes, you have to do things that are wrong, something being wrong doesn’t restrict anyone from doing it. Most people who commit crimes know that it’s wrong, they still do it, usually because it is necessary.

So I suppose the "greater good propaganda" isn't crap anymore, just a necessary evil right?

+-+-+-+

This debate has run its course and since Ken has said that the post I'm replying to will be his last, I see no point in continuing this publicly either. Since I've done quite a job in derailing this topic, I'll come back tomorrow and post my final opinion on happiness as soon as possible. I hope this has been entertaining for you all.