Morality-happiness-logical truth

27 views
Skip to first unread message

don stoner

unread,
Aug 26, 2020, 8:42:00 PM8/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

Inline image

Scott Adams just presented this convoluted juxtaposition of: 1) Morality  2) Happiness  3) Logical Truth.
I thought it might be fun.

- Don (nobody)

Cary Cook

unread,
Aug 26, 2020, 9:28:10 PM8/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Just for fun?  Or a discussion starter?

I get a lot of unwanted advice from people who tell me how I could easily make my life less unhappy.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/179407112.6029129.1598488917996%40mail.yahoo.com.

 

1598484297157blob.jpg

don stoner

unread,
Aug 26, 2020, 10:13:21 PM8/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
No pressure. No need to feel guilt.
I just thought of you when I saw it.

-Don

Cary Cook

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 12:16:00 AM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

What pressure?  What guilt?

 It would be fun talking about it with YOU, because you know me.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: 'don stoner' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 7:13 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Morality-happiness-logical truth

 

No pressure. No need to feel guilt.

I just thought of you when I saw it.

 

-Don

 

On Wednesday, August 26, 2020, 06:28:18 PM PDT, Cary Cook <cary...@att.net> wrote:

 

 

Just for fun?  Or a discussion starter?

I get a lot of unwanted advice from people who tell me how I could easily make my life less unhappy.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: 'don stoner' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:42 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Morality-happiness-logical truth

 

Cary,

 

Scott Adams just presented this convoluted juxtaposition of: 1) Morality  2) Happiness  3) Logical Truth.

I thought it might be fun.

 

- Don (nobody)

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/179407112.6029129.1598488917996%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5f470c2a.1c69fb81.eecd6.24dfSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

don stoner

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 2:07:56 AM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cool!

My initial reaction was that Scott Adams might be onto something, but it is difficult to sort out what, exactly, that might be.

Text:
A) Carol: You should see a therapist about your narcissism.
B) Dilbert: If I'm happy and you're unhappy, doesn't that mean you should see a therapist and I should stay the way I am?
C) Carol: No, that's totally wrong, but give me a minute to come up with a reason.

First-pass Analysis:
A) Carol suggests Dilbert's Narcissism (presumed to be a false perception) is a moral flaw which "should" be repaired.
B) Dilbert argues (if/[then]) that his own happiness, vs. Carol's unhappiness, indicates that she "should" be repaired instead.
    He appears assume that happiness indicates moral correctness and unhappiness its lack (this "feels" obvious, but is left unproven).
    He also appears to assume that this element is more important than any truth/falsity in his own self perception (this is, at least, ignored).
C) Carol ostensibly rejects Dilbert's argument but cannot help feeling the same "obvious" appeal toward happiness, which Dilbert expressed.
    Her reply appears to snag on two conflicting observations:
    1) That Dilbert has "cheated" by using "feelings" as terms in an otherwise logical argument, and:
    2) That She would need to tread on the same ("cheating") ground to come up with a "reasonable" counterargument against the same "terms."

My take is that there is some kind of loosely-coupled?/quasi-disconnected? link between happiness and moral truth.
I just don't understand what it "is" or "isn't."  Why does it seem to be both at the same time?
To further complicate things, "moral truth" shares a common syntax with "logical truth" -- making the two difficult to separate.
(I have never actually decided whether or not the two are really the same thing, as they almost-mechanically appear to be.)

I still can't sort out why I feel a disconnect between morality and "moral truth,"
but I was hoping there might be a possible clue hidden in Scott Adams' apparently-similar observation.

Any Ideas?

- Don

Cary Cook

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 5:45:44 AM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Why do you assume Dilbert cares about moral correctness at all?  He's happy.  He thinks happy is a good (pragmatically) way to be.  He sees no reason to care if he's a narcisist.  Dilbert cares about pragmatic should.  Carol cares about moral should.  Dilbert proposes a pragmatic fix to Carol's pragmatic problem.  Carol hasn't figured out the pragmatic/moral distinction to the should concept.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

don stoner

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 1:35:14 PM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
My point in bringing it up (and Scott Adams' point) was the panel-3-showcased disconnect between logic and either conclusion.
- Don
On Thursday, August 27, 2020, 02:50:19 AM PDT, Cary Cook <cary...@att.net> wrote:


If you got 2 responses, trash the 1st one.

I thought the 1st one was lost, so I wrote the 2nd one.

Trash this too.

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Cary Cook
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 2:45 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Morality-happiness-logical truth

 

Why do you assume Dilbert cares about moral correctness at all?  He's happy.  He thinks happy is a good (pragmatically) way to be.  He sees no reason to care if he's a narcisist.  Dilbert cares about pragmatic should.  Carol cares about moral should.  Dilbert proposes a pragmatic fix to Carol's pragmatic problem.  Carol hasn't figured out the pragmatic/moral distinction to the should concept.

 

Cary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 8:06:37 PM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

So... what do you want to discuss that I haven't already resolved?

don stoner

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 8:26:47 PM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
I had hoped to find a logical basis for either Carol's stoicism or Dilbert's hedonism, or, barring that, proof that neither was provable.
- Don

Cary Cook

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 10:52:25 PM8/27/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

There is an ambiguity that must be clarified before concluding that Carol is stoic: Does "No, that's totally wrong" rebut:

1. "You're unhappy."

or

2. "You should see a therapist."

or

3. You're unhappy, therefore you should see a therapist.

 

If 1, her logical basis is that she is not unhappy.

If 2, her logical basis is that she doesn't think seeing a therapist will make her happy.

If 3, her logical basis is that she doesn't think seeing a therapist makes anyone happy.

 

Assuming that Carol is stoic for whatever reason, her logical basis is that she thinks stoicism is emotionally pragmatic.

Dilbert's hedonism logically follows from his assumption of emotional pragmatism.

don stoner

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 12:43:30 AM8/28/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
None of the above.

The joke makes no sense unless we assume Carol is a stoic and that she is challenging Dilbert's Hedonism.

In that case, she hit's the logical disconnect (described previously) and encounters the paradox that makes the joke funny.

Cary Cook

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 1:14:14 AM8/28/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

You asked for a logical base for Carol's stoicism or Dilbert's hedonism.  I answered your questions.  The logical base for both is emotional pragmatics.  Now you've changed the subject - to what, I don't know.

 

The only sense I can see that the joke makes is:

C accuses D on moral grounds.

D rebuts the accusation on pragmatic grounds, and reverses it on pragmatic grounds.

C disagrees with the reversal for one of several reasons, and can't think of a response, because she doesn't have moral should distinguished from pragmatic should.  It’s a weak joke.

 

If the joke makes sense some other way, then state it clearly.

If you can't state it clearly, you have no case.

don stoner

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 10:42:28 AM8/28/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
> The logical base for both is emotional pragmatics.

I guess this is where we passed in the fog.

I don't consider "emotional pragmatics" to be a "logical basis."

I presume this is about as far as we can take this one.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages