If you do not yet understand that making life healthier and happier and more secure for the people living it as sufficient purpose, that video would not get you any closer to understanding it, so there's no point watching it. — Vera Mont

I'm challenging the widely held conviction that health and happiness are somehow worthy goals in and of themselves.

And, as I am not a certified philosopher, neither can I give you sufficient explanation.

Bummer.

I'm challenging the widely held conviction that health and happiness are somehow worthy goals in and of themselves. — baker

This is supposed to a philosophy forum. Present your finely-reasoned argument.

What moral indignation? If you do not yet understand that making life healthier and happier and more secure for the people living it as sufficient purpose — Vera Mont

That cannot be sufficient. Making people healthier and happier and safe can be done in a bubble for certain elite while the rest of the world suffers. Read Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, it is a good starting point.

I asked you what the purpose of health and happiness was, since you advocate for health and happiness.

battle of reason and unreason in governance of the public mind? — Pantagruel

Reason is not an absolute thing, it is relative to the culture of a society and even relative to each individual as you go down to the level interest you touch (national interest, individual interest, etc.).
What do you think, is it god above all of us or humans rights? this is the quid of the question.
We see nowadays conflicts between western and middle-east... the root is all in this dichotomy: human rights or god above us?
It all ends-up into unavoidable conflicts (natural state of human history is war) as long as religions keep building the identity of peoples and nations. An when I say religions I include as well laicism.
Humans are afraid of dying... this generates religious believes and as we get more and more people... the social system generates wars...
What is the only solution? Reduce world human population to the critical mass that we know will not generate more than one religion, that is to say maybe few hundreds?... even there, in small villages, people kill themselves because "he looked at my wife".... jealusy, vanity, egoism, avarice... it is all in our brains :-)

The only solution is to find our "soma" (A. Huxley) and mae sure everyone drinks it every morning :-D

Making people healthier and happier and safe can be done in a bubble for certain elite while the rest of the world suffers. — Raul

That is what economic disparity does, yes. The point of ending economic disparity is to make it so for all the people. If that is not sufficient for you, fine, but I don't think you have the authority to proclaim that it cannot be sufficient for anyone else.

I asked you what the purpose of health and happiness was, since you advocate for health and happiness — baker

I didn't advocate for health and happiness - of course I would, if it were a question of advocacy. But I do think they're more worthwhile goals than wealth and power, if those are the available options.
As previously noted, this is an opinion. If you believe that being ill, anxious and miserable are preferable, that's also an opinion. The difference is, I won't tell you that it's an impossible or unacceptable one.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them. — baker

Since I don't believe life has a purpose beyond itself, or that quality of life needs justification, that question simply has no meaning for me, no matter how many times it's repeated.

I didn't advocate for health and happiness - of course I would, if it were a question of advocacy. But I do think they're more worthwhile goals than wealth and power, if those are the available options. — Vera Mont

Health and happiness are impossible without wealth and power.
Especially if worldwide economic disparity is to be ended, it seems this could only be done through wielding wealth and power.

As previously noted, this is an opinion. If you believe that being ill, anxious and miserable are preferable, that's also an opinion.

That's a false dichotomy, focusing only on the extremes.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.
— baker

Since I don't believe life has a purpose beyond itself, or that quality of life needs justification, that question simply has no meaning for me, no matter how many times it's repeated.

Societies that focus on health and happiness go in a well-known direction:



This same trend can be observed in modern societies (which also tend to be "more equal") where health and happiness are held to such a high standard that the state has legalized ways for people to be eliminated from society if they can't live up to that standard by giving them the option of "euthanasia" or "assisted suicide".

Don't forget that the Nazis started off their murdering spree by killing their own people whom they deemed "unworthy of life" -- and it was all fully legal.

Health and happiness are impossible without wealth and power. — baker

That opinion appears to me not based in documented fact. That is the subject matter of the book I cited. There is a short video on the same theme.

That's a false dichotomy, focusing only on the extremes. — baker

You have not offered a third way.

Don't forget that the Nazis started off their murdering spree by killing their own people whom they deemed "unworthy of life" -- and it was all fully legal. — baker

And you speak of false dichotomies?