But depression is certainly incompatible with happiness.
Also…Malta? Seriously? Milan alone has thrice its population.
That’s just it. It is just words. You aren’t presenting anything objective. All you have presented is subjective.
Vinnie
You introduced that survey; if data that includes Malta shouldn’t be taken seriously, then you shouldn’t have used it.
The only difference here is that @T_aquaticus admits it.
Since I am saying human nature is subjective, why would I need to present anything objective?
1 Like
You conveniently decided to handwave this away:
The Happiest countries in the world -ranking has been a source of wonder and fun in Finland (nr 1) - are we the happiest people???
The explanation becomes evident when we look at what the ranking compared:
“Happiness rankings are determined by analyzing comprehensive Gallup polling data from 149 countries in six particular categories: gross domestic product per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make your own life choices, generosity of the general population, and perceptions of internal and external corruption levels.”
We rank fairly well in some of these categories but is it happiness?
Maybe the poll includes factors that may support happiness but it is not a direct measure of happiness. There are also factors which challenge mental health, like darkness during much of the winter, a high percentage of unemployment (>10%), a relatively high percentage of burnouts among those who have a job, and some other factors. But maybe our problems are small relative to what people in many other countries have to suffer.
One point to notice about the Nordic countries - Finland (1), Denmark (2), Iceland (3), Sweden (4), Norway (7): although the percentages of Christian believers have dropped a lot during the last 50 years, the cultures, values and Constitutions have been built historically on Lutheran Christianity (the former state religion). We enjoy the fruits of the trees planted by the earlier generations.
1 Like
Your struggle is one I have never experienced. As I have said many times, if people find meaning in their beliefs then I am glad they have them.
1 Like
You are certainly presenting your views like they are true. If you do not think your views actually correspond to reality, my mistake. I wasted a lot of time thinking you actually believed what you argued.
Vinnie
1 Like
That’s not what you said.
“You aren’t presenting anything objective. All you have presented is subjective.”
Yes, what I have presented is subjective. You act as if something can’t both be true to a person and be subjective. I’m here to tell you that there are beliefs I hold to be true that I also understand to be subjective. I love my mother very much. That is a belief I hold to be absolutely true. I also believe it is subjective. I also believe this subjective belief is one of the most important things in my life.
You seem to trip over this idea that if something is subjective it means it isn’t important. I would strongly suggest that this isn’t true.
Taking just the data regarding Malta was a poor move, that’s what i was saying.
I didn’t. I was simply wondering how that supposed ‘happiness’ could be reconciled with such an alarmingly high rate of depression—which is also why I asked what happiness means to you.
I’m fine with that opinion, as long as you acknowledge that marrying a child (see the discussion we had about Muhammad) could be considered morally defensible—if one subjectively and genuinely believes they are doing the right thing.
If Muhammad loved Aisha and believed he was acting according to God’s will when he married her, and the Hadith described aspects of their intimate life and their sexual acts (when she was still, for all intents and purposes, a child), do you think his actions were morally defensible, given that he sincerely — even if subjectively — believed he was carrying out God’s will?
It would have been, but I actually took the data regarding Malta, Estonia and Sweden.
What was a poor move was ignoring the data regarding Malta.
Are you going to acknowledge that marrying a child could be considered morally defensible if there is an objective moral standard that permits it?
There isn’t. What is good in the eyes of God is the same as what is good for human beings, and it certainly cannot be good to marry a child or have sex with her. The fact that a so-called prophet who founded a Christian heresy married a child and attempted to justify it does not change that.
But if someone denies objective morality and teleology, then yes—even pedophilia can become morally justifiable, and it is only anathema to contemporary Westerners because it goes against (thank God) the spirit of the age.
So you won’t acknowledge that.
Asking others to answer questions based on hypotheticals but refusing to answer them yourself is hypocritical.
I won’t ask you to show there is no such objective moral standard, because I know you can’t.
I said that I reject the idea that there could be an objective morality which commands or allows actions harmful to innocent human beings, such as children. It may be proposed as a thought experiment, but in my view it is ultimately nonsensical.
Asking others to answer questions based on moral standards they do not hold but refusing to answer such questions yourself is also hypocritical.
If you aren’t prepared to answer hypothetical questions about moral standards you reject, don’t ask such questions of others.
My point was simply that a materialist who does not believe in objective morality can only say that pedophilia goes against current social norms and sensibilities; they cannot claim that it is objectively morally wrong—that is all. If you reject God and teleology literally anything becomes possibile and permissible under the right circumstances and in the “right” social landscape.