One Basic Question

[Leonhard]

No, I said that worshiping God does not make you happy. It is what makes me happy, happiest - so what makes us happy is subjective. No?

Uh that's like saying that food allergy is subjective, because to one person a food product causes no ill, to another person it causes agony and sickness. Also you can't compare my reasons for being unhappy worshipping "God', because you believe in God and I don't. I had no problem worshipping. I liked that part. The same thing that made you happy, made me happy and probably for the same reasons as well. If you came to believe that God did not exist, you would grow supremely uncomfortable worshipping something by that name if you're an honest person.

[Carrikature]

It's not the behavior that makes men happy. Rather, these behaviors are the best way to achieve our personal happiness goals. Nothing requires all men to be happy about the same thing.

Well I think that is actually what Leonhard is suggesting, at least that is what I understood him to be saying in past discussions.

Leon, mind clarifying?

[Venryx]

Actually it doesn't lead to that conclusion. Whether or not we do have reasons for behaving in one way rather than another, your line of questioning wouldn't reveal this to be the case. In either case it would always hit something that doesn't have further explanation. For example the axiom that I showed you. A demand for an explanation of those axioms would only give you motivating reasons for accepting them, not another axiom. An axiom based on other axiom is an oxymoron at any rate.

That's true, my line of reasoning doesn't actually establish that there are no ultimate reasons to do anything. Though at least for me, it reveals that I don't know any ultimate reasons to do anything.

There's a veiled ad hominem here. Liking or not liking the conclusion wasn't part of it, I never said anything about conclusions and whether I liked them or not.

That's true. You never said anything about whether you "liked" the conclusion I claimed to have come to.

And I also didn't say that the conclusion was non-senical, but that this line of questioning was non-sensical. It could never spit out an answer: It can neither conclude that there's no reason for doing anything, or that there are reasons for doing anything. That's what makes it non sensical.

You're right about this too, you were only referring to the line of questioning being non-sensical. Sorry for not reading your response more carefully.

How would you get to that conclusion?

Well, that was an overstatement of the more accurate conclusion, which I mention above: "Though at least for me, it reveals that I don't know any ultimate reasons to do anything."

I did, and you didn't interact with them.

You're referring to these, right?
1) "Because you want to. If you want to attain something, then you have a reason for attaining that something. This seems to flow obviously from the definition of a want/desire/goal."
2) "If you want something, then you have a reason for getting that. Happiness is what you want for its own sake. Therefore you have reasons for achieving happiness.

Yeah, I think I get what you're saying. If you want x, then by definition you have a reason to seek x: because you want it. Is this what you mean?

After thinking about this some more, I realize that my question is a bit misguided. I should not be asking for a "reason", at least not in the sense that it's regularly defined. Why? Because it's regularly defined in such a way that it allows "loopbacks" and "infinite regresses", which are both things that I'm not asking for.

So I think I need to reformulate my question in a way that brings to light what I believe to be a core problem in our claiming that we're justified in seeking our own happiness.

Let me start with an illustration.

Imagine that you're a robotics genius, and you've created a robot so intelligent that it asks you questions that you've never even considered.

One day the robot looks up and says, "I have been irreversibly programmed to try to fulfill the goals you have given me. One of these goals, Goal A, is to keep the people around me happy. I am currently performing a thought process to learn how to do this better. But to get to the next step, I need to know something. Does my working towards your happiness make you happy?"

You: "Yes, Robot, it makes me very happy to know that you're trying to make me happy."
Robot: "Good. Trying to make you happy makes you happy, which accomplishes my goals. Master, you have also programmed me to be curious. Which of your goals did you accomplish when you programmed me to make you happy?"
You: "When I programmed you to make me happy, it accomplished what you could call my Goal A, which is to make myself happy."
Robot: "My goal is just a spin-off of yours, then?"
You: "Yes. The only goal accomplished when you fulfill your goal of obedience is my goal of being happy."
Robot: "Master, is your goal also just a spin-off of someone else's, then?"
You: "No, Robot, my goal is worthwhile for its own sake."
Robot: "I shall say the same thing then; my goal of obedience is worthwhile for its own sake."
You: "No, Robot, I already explained that your goals are merely steps in a grander picture. Without my goals behind it, no goal would be accomplished by it, and it would therefore be meaningless."
Robot: "But your goals have no goals behind them either. What goal is accomplished when you achieve your goal of happiness?"
You: "I don't need my goal to fulfill another goal. It is worth fulfilling all on its own."
Robot: "But how do you know that? How is your goal any different than mine?"

You: <TWebbers, please write your answers below>

I don't think its sound, anymore than Cartesian doubt is sound. While its possible to ask for further explanations of anything, it seems to me you will eventually hit something not explained by any further terms. Axioms, basic postulates, etc... In effect what you're saying is that such things don't exist. At least not for moral decision making. I dispute that.

Robot: "I shall say the same thing then; my goal of obedience is worthwhile for its own sake."

[seer]

Uh that's like saying that food allergy is subjective, because to one person a food product causes no ill, to another person it causes agony and sickness. Also you can't compare my reasons for being unhappy worshiping "God', because you believe in God and I don't. I had no problem worshiping. I liked that part. The same thing that made you happy, made me happy and probably for the same reasons as well. If you came to believe that God did not exist, you would grow supremely uncomfortable worshiping something by that name if you're an honest person.

What? Leonhard it is not the "act" of worshiping that makes my supremely happy it is the "object" of that worship. The God of scripture especially as reveled in the person of Christ Jesus. My point again Leonhard is that what makes you happy is not necessarily what will make all men happy, or this man happy. And if I understand you correctly your whole theory depends on that one assumption.