I think you can validly challenge someone about the quality of life and their quality of life on an empirical basis. — Andrew4Handel

You mean the question of the quality of someone's life can be settled by empirical facts about them?

The alternative where someone is always right about the quality of life means you cannot differentiate between quality of life and is a subjective nihilism, where the individual is always right about their interpretation of the external world. — Andrew4Handel

How about an alternative where we cannot quantify the quality of everyone's life?

The ad absurdum is that a child dying of malnutrition in a war torn slum could claim to have a good quality of life. But if you accept this would be an absurd claim then there is some objective standard. Also examples are such as the Holocaust, famine in general, mental illness and cancer. — Andrew4Handel

Aren't you arguing form particular to the general here? What is your justification for the case that we can make an empirical judgement about all the quality of life issues, and not just the cases where people are in deep suffering?

So once you accept somethings are highly undesirable you can start an empirical utilitarian calculation about the quality of life. — Andrew4Handel

What about the quality of lives that people are happy? Without mention to happiness, your thesis leads, at best, to a negative utilitarian calculation.

The alternative where someone is always right about the quality of life means you cannot differentiate between quality of life and is a subjective nihilism, where the individual is always right about their interpretation of the external world. — Andrew4Handel

It's not that they're right. They're not wrong, either. Right and wrong about such things is a category error.

That's because what it is to get something right or wrong is to either accurately match, in belief (and subsequently claim, etc.), how something actually happens to be, or to alternately fail to match how something actually happens to be. For example, if you believe that the surface of the moon is mostly oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, and aluminum, then you're right--you're matching what the moon happens to be composed of, but if you believe that the surface of the moon is made of cheese, you're wrong.

When we're talking about quality (of life), value, etc., we're talking about someone's personal assessment, how they happen to feel towards something. There's nothing to match or fail to match. There's only something to report--the person's assessment or how they feel. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It just tells us something about that person, something about their dispositions, their preferences, their tastes.

When we're talking about quality (of life), value, etc., we're talking about someone's personal assessment, how they happen to feel towards something. There's nothing to match or fail to match. — Terrapin Station

I think there is something to match and fail to match which is their beliefs about how the world is. Facts about a disease they have, or level of injury, facts about societal inequality. Sometimes people feelings are based on inaccurate beliefs.

What I think is nihilism is the idea that someone who feels that something like child abuse is acceptable cannot be challenged by external facts. If someone feels something is acceptable that is more likely to contribute to how they act in the external world.

If you can't pin values down to objective facts that doesn't help any position.

Facts about a disease they have, or level of injury, facts about societal inequality. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, no argument there, but those things just aren't the same thing as their assessment of their quality of life.

Sometimes people feelings are based on inaccurate beliefs.

Yes, that can be true, too, but again, it doesn't amount to being able to get their quality of life assessment wrong. It's also not the case that someone will necessarily change their quality of life assessment just because they were wrong about, for example, whether they had some disease. They might change their quality of life assessment based on that, but they won't necessarily.

What I think is nihilism is the idea that someone who feels that something like child abuse is acceptable cannot be challenged by external facts.

It's rather that it can't be changed by external facts re whether child abuse is acceptable, because there are no external facts about such things. But sure, people factor external facts into their judgments about such things, and different knowledge can change their judgments--but it won't necessarily change their judgments, since no value judgments are implied by any particular facts, and even if their judgments do change, they won't necessarily change in predictable ways.

Aren't you arguing from particular to the general here? What is your justification for the case that we can make an empirical judgement about all the quality of life issues, and not just the cases where people are in deep suffering? — Purple Pond

I am pointing out the absurdity of claiming people in famine and genocide etc cannot be judged to have a poor quality of life
The equation then is how much of this suffering is in our world?. We live in the world and co exist with this suffering.
I think reflection on historical evils and current suffering in the world could easily be seen as something that could affect ones quality of life by reflecting on it and reflecting on falling victim to something like it.

I think this is the problem with claims of happiness because happiness seems absurd in certain contexts.
I find it hard to see things that warrant happiness because of the backdrop of problems.

Sure, no argument there, but those things just aren't the same thing as their assessment of their quality of life. — Terrapin Station

I am not convinced quality of life is based on how someone feels. People can be happy whilst suffering. They don't believe they have a great quality of life but they have found some things to be happy about. So I don't think feeling happy means you have a good quality of life or that you believe that you have a good quality of life.

But someone can have a privileged lifestyle but be unhappy for some reason. I don't know what to make of that. There is not many circumstances it seems that can guarantee a fixed emotional response. I think it is easier to generate suffering than happiness but I don't know what the depression statistics are for people in the wealthier brackets. it raises the question of how we can increase happiness.

It is hard to find a framework to judge quality of life and value of life so I think facts about inequality, poverty, disease, mental illness etc are the best metric. Things that generate happiness can be in an equation I just find those things harder to find.

What about the quality of lives that people are happy? Without mention to happiness, your thesis leads, at best, to a negative utilitarian calculation. — Purple Pond

I think it is harder to pin down the causes of happiness compared to pain. For example stamping on someones foot will most likely hart them but I don't think any actions can guarantee happiness and I am not sure that there is somewhere in the nervous system equivalent to the pain system for pleasure.

Pain can be caused by chemical and neuronal activity caused by injury. It is often guaranteed to occur if the nervous system is working.

Nevertheless pain and pleasure could mislead us if they were somehow generated wrongly. Maybe winning the lottery is a situation where some happiness should be guaranteed? Knowing you may never have to work again and may not have to worry about funding your old age.

I am not convinced quality of life is based on how someone feels. People can be happy whilst suffering. They don't believe they have a great quality of life but they have found some things to be happy about. So I don't think feeling happy means you have a good quality of life or that you believe that you have a good quality of life. — Andrew4Handel

???

Quality of life = how you feel about your quality of life. In other words, it's your assessment of your quality of life. I'm not saying it's how you feel about something else.

It is hard to find a framework to judge quality of life and value of life — Andrew4Handel

We could simply ask people and then report the results.

Here is one of the first definitions of "Quality" that I found: "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind" So this to me implies an objective standard something being a measured against as opposed an opinion.

We could simply ask people and then report the results — Terrapin Station

What kind of questions would you ask them? I think you would have to ask a lot of sophisticated and nuanced questions to get a genuine well thought out answer.

The examples I was referring to is where someone acknowledges that they have a poor quality of lifelike a profound disability or are comparatively poor but is not unhappy. You can make this kind of distinction in judgments between your emotional state and facts abut how your life is

.

Here is one of the first definitions of "Quality" that I found: "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind" So this to me implies an objective standard something being a measured against as opposed an opinion. — Andrew4Handel

What would you say is the process for establishing an objective standard?

What would you say is the process for establishing an objective standard? — Terrapin Station

In that definition it says to be measured against other things of a similar kind.

So it would probably involve comparing states of being. So If you live in poverty you know there is a better state of being you are not in and compare badly to.

I don't know if you believe that we can talk about levels of happiness in a society. Do you think that if 70% of people report being happy that we can refer to society as mainly happy as an objective fact?

I think that you can't add emotional states together like that really because it is based on subjective claims but i think we can compare states of being like levels of inequality and disease.

on the other hand you could be what i consider nihilist and say that all that matters is what someone claims and there can be only objective scientific facts about the constituents of matter interacting (and not psychology).

In that definition it says to be measured against other things of a similar kind.

So it would probably involve comparing states of being. So If you live in poverty you know there is a better state of being you are not in and compare badly to. — Andrew4Handel

Okay, but wait. It seems like we're brushing over this too quickly.

If we're talking about there being a standard as measured against other things of a similar kind, we can't just talk about measuring against things of a similar kind while bypassing the whole notion of there being a standard of that. The standard is the focus of the definition, and "as measured against other things of a similar kind" is telling us some more detail about the standard.

Re your example, "I live in poverty compared to x," doesn't tell us anything at all about the assessment someone makes with respect to their quality of life. Maybe they think this factor is irrelevant. Maybe they even think it's better to live in poverty. They could have any assessment. And it especially doesn't tell us anything about what's a right or wrong assessment.

I think you can refer to biological facts. Facts about how the body functions and what a likely outcome is going to be such as whether an event will cause pain or illness. Relatively poverty is more likely to cause early death, depression and mean you live in an area with a higher crime rate.

Maybe they even think it's better to live in poverty — Terrapin Station

This where it seems absurd. Very few people want to live in poverty but some religious people might take a vow of poverty. I think the likelihood of people enjoying a situation is fairly objective. It seems the most diversity of tastes comes in less important areas like what music you enjoy as opposed to physical well being.

There was the case of Bhutan that was considered one of the happiest countries. They introduced television in 1999 and experienced a sudden crime wave. It was suggested that this was because people could see things on televisions that they didn't have an now aspired to.
They suggest this is why there is substantial unhappiness in the western world.

So it seems you can discover that you do not have a good quality of life compared to X. But I am by no means saying that you have to be wealthy to be happy. I just think there are objective reasons for being unhappy or unwell or feeling a sense of injustice.

I think that you can judge that someone has a poor quality of life based on their own standards.

For example if someone wanted to get married and have children but never did. Or if someone wanted to see an end to cancer and poverty. Or if someone wanted to be a musician but failed to be. And so on.

I think the likelihood of people enjoying a situation is fairly objective. — Andrew4Handel

I think that, too, given what likelihood is--that is, given how statistics work, etc.

The problem is this: what does that fact have to do with whether someone can get their quality of life wrong?

The problem is this: what does that fact have to do with whether someone can get their quality of life wrong? — Terrapin Station

If statistics and other external facts go against someone having a good quality of life yet they believe they have then that raises questions about their judgement.

Something subjective can still be wrong. For example illusions such as where one line seems longer than another or when a bush looks like a cow in the night.

So I think false beliefs can make people judgement wrong.
For example lots of people have been shown to exhibit thejust world fallacy or just world hypothesis where they show that they believe the world is more just or fair than it actually is and the fundamental attribution error where they misattribute causality and peoples degree of responsibility in a scenario.

If statistics and other external facts go against someone having a good quality of life yet they believe they have then that raises questions about their judgement. — Andrew4Handel

You'd have to believe that people should feel the same way, should make the same assessments, as most other people. But what would be the argument for that?

Something subjective can still be wrong. For example illusions such as where one line seems longer than another or when a bush looks like a cow in the night. — Andrew4Handel

Right, if we're talking about something where you can either match or fail to match what's the case with x in the external world. But what would anyone be matching or failing to match re quality of life assessments? You're thinking that they're failing to match how most people feel and that they're trying to match how most people feel?

But what would anyone be matching or failing to match re quality of life assessments? — Terrapin Station

As I mentioned with the just world fallacy they have false beliefs about the external world so they the emotions they feel are being generated by falsehoods. For example someone might feel happy because they believe poverty has decreased then you can hypothetically show them statistics that refute this belief showing that their feelings had a false basis.

You'd have to believe that people should feel the same way, should make the same assessments, as most other people. But what would be the argument for that? — Terrapin Station

Like I said you can judge that someone has a poor quality of life based on their own standards. So before I suggested someone was making a wrong assessment about the quality of their life I would have to examine their beliefs methodologically.

Like I also mentioned people can acknowledge they have a below average quality of life whilst being happy. I could be happy but wish my eyesight was better and that I earned a higher wage.

So after you have ruled out all these possibilities then you can see whether they still believe they have a good quality of life. I think if someone had lots of problems but still considered they had a good quality of life that would suggest they were just lucky with their brain chemistry and biochemistry and that the quality of life claim could not come from their actual circumstances.

I don't think one person claims about their quality of life is relevant in the wider picture of society per se when you are making a calculation about the average desirability of life. I don't think if some people are happy in poverty that mitigates poverty.

As I mentioned with the just world fallacy they have false beliefs about the external world so they the emotions they feel are being generated by falsehoods. For example someone might feel happy because they believe poverty has decreased then you can hypothetically show them statistics that refute this belief showing that their feelings had a false basis. — Andrew4Handel

But they dont have false beliefs about their quality of life assessment. You're trying to claim that the quality of life assessment can be objective. Quality of life assessment isn't the same thing as facts that might have an impact on quality of life assessments.

I don't think one person claims about their quality of life is relevant in the wider picture of society per se when you are making a calculation about the average desirability of life. — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, it's not going to matter when you want to talk about averages, but talking about averages also doesn't tell you what anyone's assessment is going to be, I don't believe that it tells you what anyone's assessment is likely to be, and it certainly can't tell you that anyone's assessment is wrong.

You're trying to claim that the quality of life assessment can be objective. — Terrapin Station

I think there are two aspects to a quality of life assessment. How someone feels about their life and the physical facts.

If you are a building a society you are going to try and build it considering the physical facts concerning what harms people.

I don't accept that quality of life simply reduces to how someone feels about their situation at a given moment. there are objective facts about things that are likely to increase someones well being. I think the cases you are relying on are in the minority where someone is happy with poor circumstances

If you are a building a society you are going to try and build it considering the physical facts concerning what harms people. — Andrew4Handel

Which has to be about how they feel about things, otherwise the very idea of it doesn't make any sense.

I don't accept that quality of life simply reduces to how someone feels about their situation at a given moment. — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, I think it's clear that you don't and won't accept that. The problem is that factually, that's what it is.

there are objective facts about things that are likely to increase someones well being. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. But that doesn't change that quality of life simply reduces to how someone feels about their situation at a given moment. You won't be able to admit or see this, because you can't/won't accept it for some reason.

Which has to be about how they feel about things, — Terrapin Station

What physical benefits someone is not about what they feel.

Someone without access to clean water will be prone to disease. We know how to make environments that are at least physically healthy for people. Emotional well being is a more complicated matter but there can be facts of the matter.

You can manipulate someones mental states with drugs or brain interventions like deep brain stimulation and change the way they feel. It is not solely in their control.

What physical benefits someone is not about what they feel. — Andrew4Handel

Yes it is. There is no objective "benefit." There are different physical states. No state is objectively preferred to any other state. It's individual people who have preferences, who count one thing as desirable versus another, who count one thing as a benefit and another as a hindrance, who have goals and then desire for them to be met. The world outside of individual people thinking such things does nothing of the sort.

I could concede to some degree on the idea that what is most important for well being is possibly how someone feels.Although I think how they feel still relates to objective circumstance.

But I think there are also enough objective facts that influence quality that we don't need to make a judgement solely based on persons subjective testimony.

Although I think how they feel still relates to objective circumstance. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. Again, I'm not at all denying that. The point is that "This is a benefit," "This is my quality of life," etc. are not objective circumstances. Those are judgments that individual people make. We can't conflate the judgments and objective things that may factor into the judgments. They're not the same thing.

No state is objectively preferred to any other state. — Terrapin Station

But some physical states are functional and relied upon to keep a human body alive. No one could flourish in an environment that was lethal to the human body.

Before anyone can express a desire about their life they need to have come to exist and survived in an environment conducive to human well being.

But some physical states are functional and relied upon to keep a human body alive. No one could flourish in an environment that was lethal to the human body. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, and objectively, there's no preference for keeping human bodies alive. That only arrives via individual people desiring it.

Before anyone can express a desire about their life they need to have come to exist and survived in an environment conducive to human well being. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. But that doesn't make any state objectively preferable.

Did you ever adhere to Rand's Objectivism, by the way? Some of your comments seem as if they may have initially stemmed from views similar to hers re how she tries to bootstrap the idea of objective value.

I think that if you had a very depressed person and a very happy person they would still both responded negatively to being burnt on the hand.

I think even for people who consider life to be almost worthless they can still experience pain objectively and differentiate between levels of pain. So that even with a very poor quality life it can objectively be made worse and a very good quality of life may get even better.

I think biology does prove that there is ideal functioning of a human body and that organs can be defined by their ability to form a specific function.

The mind is a more complicated place and I think this is where the subjective defense or vagueness lies. But if we knew exactly how the brain and mind worked we could probably objectively manufacture well being here. Therapies and antidepressants already have positive effects for some people.

Sure. But that doesn't make any state objectively preferable. — Terrapin Station

The fact that someone can only express a desire after their body has reached a certain level of functionality means that there is a certain necessary level of functionality required to even have this debate and make judgments, so these are things we are subservient to.


I see no reason to assume someone is right when they make a claim about their quality of life. I have given reasons why they could be wrong such as having false beliefs. But also I don't think someones personal judgement has that much power.

For example I might kidnap someone and they strongly desire not to be kidnapped but I easily overrule that. So in this sense someones life could be meaningful even if they reject the idea. Someone can be mentally ill and forced into hospital treatment and then their mental health improves and they have a better quality of life by force.

The fact that someone can only express a desire after their body has reached a certain level of functionality means that there is a certain necessary level of functionality required to even have this debate and make judgments, so these are things we are subservient to. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. But again, what does that have to do with the idea of objective preferences?

I see no reason to assume someone is right when they make a claim about their quality of life. — Andrew4Handel

Again, they're not right or wrong. Right and wrong are category errors for this.

I have given reasons why they could be wrong such as having false beliefs. — Andrew4Handel

And I've explained that you're not actually arguing for being right or wrong about quality of life assessments. They can be right or wrong about their relative wealth, whether they have a disease, whether most people have some particular assessment, etc. None of that is being right or wrong about their assessment of their quality of life. They can also have different assessments at different times, and those assessments can change as they come to different beliefs about facts, or different mental health states, etc., but that doesn't amount to their assessments being right or wrong. Their assessment isn't the same as any of those other things.