The Moral Traveler: Choice and Decision, 3

Part 1 of 2:

Building on the prior meetings "Self, Sense of Self, Self-Image" (Oct. 25 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/82477852/)), "The Moral Traveler: Value and Virtue" (Sept. 6 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/76983972/)), and the last two times (Nov. 1 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/88647382/) and Nov. 15 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/89759802/)), let us continue exploring the basic problem of the moral traveler in choosing and deciding.

What is the nature of choice? (Sept. 6 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/76983972/)) Why do you do this rather than that? (Oct. 25 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/82477852/)) Who gets to decide? (Nov. 1 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/88647382/)) How do you structure the relevant choices of doing? (Nov. 15 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/89759802/)) How do you decide which choice of doing to do? (Nov. 29 (https://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Philosophers-Roundtable/events/91648632/)) How indeed does anyone go about making a decision?

For example, you are attending a meeting now (perhaps not this meeting). Could you have chosen otherwise? What choices before you did you have for your deliberation? Did you choose, or did it just happen? Was it a necessary decision?

With decisions ranging from the passionate to the willful, is there a generic decision theory to cover them all?

A short summary of the previous two meetings is available for your review. So feel free to RSVP even if you didn't get to attend either one.

Part 2 of 2:

As material for further analysis, given the metaethical ideas we have been discussing, I am forwarding a terrific suggestion from Patricia that we all watch the documentary film, Happy (2011, IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1613092/)), by Roko Belic. What do you think of it? What do you think of the theory of values presented from 28:10 and on? Do you agree, or do you challenge it? Post your questions and comments here or bring them to the meeting.

Here are some questions collected so far, first, about the theory of values as presented:

What is the theory of values presented from 28:10 and on, and what does it mean? Are the researchers assuming choice or necessity in the causal process of happiness? According to the theory, how does transcendence relate to happiness? Why do status, money, popularity give (or not give) you happiness? Why does a lasting, long-term relationship give (or not give) you happiness? What is the cause of the Japanese karōshi trend? Is there a difference between the pleasurable laughter of a San Bushman man and that of a rickshaw driver in Kolkata or even that of the millionaire next door? How and why does a meditation on compassion and loving kindness increase (or decrease) happiness?

Second, questions generated from specific viewers: Are the academic researchers “pushing egalitarianism as the antidote to nihilism”? How tight is the relationship between self-interest and a particular set of values which don't appear to support such policies as environment sustainability, social justice, etc.? What does the term "opposite" mean in the theory's context where two sets are said to be opposed? Does the theory claim that both sets of values cannot coexist within a person's mind at the same time? If only one set can make people happy, how does the theory explain why people pursue the other set of values? Does it make sense to ask if it is in one's self-interest to pursue happiness? With which of two metaethical relations previously discussed does the present theory of values come more into alignment?

Third, questions about the film generally: How do people (at 37:35) plan to calculate happiness in terms of aspects, replaceable parts, evaluable components, and proportions? Is happiness a free good (Cf. 72:17)? Is happiness a transitive relation; can it be transferred or shared? If it can be inferred, what is the film’s definition of happiness? For the filmmakers, who is the moral actor here? What has happiness got to do with the discussed ethical relation?