Common misconceptions based on things that seem to be obvious, but when you think about them then ma
1. "You have your health and live in a developed country therefore you should be happy...or at least happier than people that don't have those things."
Hmmm...there's an old story about a king that, one day, wanted to sit in with his wise men while they were debating wise things. The wise men started off with the discussion about why a bowl of water weighed no more with a goldfish in it than without said fish. After some debating (in which the King took very much an observational role) the King said (as Kings are entitled to do) "I doubt your premise", whereupon a bowl of water was fetched, weighed, had a fish put in it then weighed again only to find it was heavier with the fish in it. OK, so what was the point of that? Other than Kings obviously make up stories to make themselves sound clever? I suppose it's that often people debate from a point that takes a somewhat vital bit of information at the start for granted. You probably knew that already, but I've been wanted to tell that fish story for a while now.
That's where I want to begin with the idea that, if you have all four limbs, no fatal diseases, and sufficient food then you're automatically several pegs higher up the happiness chart than someone with no legs, no food and abad head cold. Right...you may be reading this right now and thinking "well, that ungrateful Matt! Take his legs away and then see how he feels! If he could experience that, then he'd appreciate being able bodied."
Well, yes, no doubt at all if you took my legs away I'd want them back. But that's not really the point. What I am saying is, would my happiness level increase overall or would I just be happy about getting my legs back? Sometimes I get back pain...right now I don't have it, so should I be doing a little dance of joy that I don't currently have this affliction? Does someone who does not have enough to eat, or who is not able bodied, have any right to be less happy than someone who is full and able to compete in a diverse range of athletic endeavours? And if so, where do we draw the line? Should you be be automatically happier (by default) if you're over 6' tall? Do I have the right to tell someone who is very attractive that they should not be depressed?
People link happiness to lots of things that they think happiness ought to be related to, but which it isn't. Perfectly able bodied people with good jobs get depressed as, I imagine, does a one legged midget living in Brazilian slum. But similarly, both those people could be very happy.
I'm not sure exactly what I am trying to say...but the next time someone says life is hard, don't say "well at least you have your health" or "at least you have enough to eat" because the causality links you are assuming to be present may not be there. Or at least they are probably quite a bit more complicated than that. Having said all that, I AM grateful I have all my bits in working order and that I have a good job etc. etc.
Hmmm...there's an old story about a king that, one day, wanted to sit in with his wise men while they were debating wise things. The wise men started off with the discussion about why a bowl of water weighed no more with a goldfish in it than without said fish. After some debating (in which the King took very much an observational role) the King said (as Kings are entitled to do) "I doubt your premise", whereupon a bowl of water was fetched, weighed, had a fish put in it then weighed again only to find it was heavier with the fish in it. OK, so what was the point of that? Other than Kings obviously make up stories to make themselves sound clever? I suppose it's that often people debate from a point that takes a somewhat vital bit of information at the start for granted. You probably knew that already, but I've been wanted to tell that fish story for a while now.
That's where I want to begin with the idea that, if you have all four limbs, no fatal diseases, and sufficient food then you're automatically several pegs higher up the happiness chart than someone with no legs, no food and abad head cold. Right...you may be reading this right now and thinking "well, that ungrateful Matt! Take his legs away and then see how he feels! If he could experience that, then he'd appreciate being able bodied."
Well, yes, no doubt at all if you took my legs away I'd want them back. But that's not really the point. What I am saying is, would my happiness level increase overall or would I just be happy about getting my legs back? Sometimes I get back pain...right now I don't have it, so should I be doing a little dance of joy that I don't currently have this affliction? Does someone who does not have enough to eat, or who is not able bodied, have any right to be less happy than someone who is full and able to compete in a diverse range of athletic endeavours? And if so, where do we draw the line? Should you be be automatically happier (by default) if you're over 6' tall? Do I have the right to tell someone who is very attractive that they should not be depressed?
People link happiness to lots of things that they think happiness ought to be related to, but which it isn't. Perfectly able bodied people with good jobs get depressed as, I imagine, does a one legged midget living in Brazilian slum. But similarly, both those people could be very happy.
I'm not sure exactly what I am trying to say...but the next time someone says life is hard, don't say "well at least you have your health" or "at least you have enough to eat" because the causality links you are assuming to be present may not be there. Or at least they are probably quite a bit more complicated than that. Having said all that, I AM grateful I have all my bits in working order and that I have a good job etc. etc.