The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2011, 03:54 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
OK, point well taken. But you don't read carefully enough, when I mentioned GMO food, I specifically said what is bad and wrong with that food. The taste. It may be healthy or neutral to your health, but the taste is simply... no taste? And most of these themes we are talking about here are too complex and too big to go into specifics, so that is why I simplify things and try to keep it as short as possible. If we go into every detail, only a marine-biologist would understand it... Smile And, no I did not mean you have something personalty against me, but it appears you have something against the way I write my posts. Never mind, I'll take into account. Now, back to the subject at hand...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2011, 10:24 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
If we are chemicals doing what they do naturally and we alter it, who is to say if we are altering who we really are. I guess what I am trying to say, if I am the chemical reactions in my brain, then I won't be me if a pill alters these chemicals that make me.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2011, 10:51 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(02-08-2011 03:54 AM)Filox Wrote:  OK, point well taken. But you don't read carefully enough, when I mentioned GMO food, I specifically said what is bad and wrong with that food. The taste. It may be healthy or neutral to your health, but the taste is simply... no taste?
I agree wholeheartedly that produce has no taste. This may be partially due to GMO, but also the fact they are picked long before they are ripe so they can be shipped half way around the world without rotting.
But this is all beside my point, which was that not everything that is "natural" is automatically good for you and not everything that is "artificial" is automatically bad for you. Just putting a substance in arbitrary categories doesn't automatically make it good or bad. A "happy pill" may be made using natural compounds (cannabis? St.John's Worth? Opiates?) or artificial ones. That alone isn't enough to make it good or bad. Its actual effects, both short and long term, and both on the individual and the society, are what determines whether it's good or bad.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2011, 01:37 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
And finally I will agree with you. Smile See, I can do that also. NotSoVacuous also said a good thing. I didn't mean to categorize things so much, but I really like nature and I think we should all live as "natural" as we can. It's hard to find any other, more suitable word for it. I think that people living in villages and on countryside have much better quality of life than people living in cities.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2011, 10:20 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(03-08-2011 01:37 AM)Filox Wrote:  And finally I will agree with you. Smile

There you go! English is not my first language and I have to write using the few words I know, so sometimes it doesn't come out sounding right, so people think I am antagonizing them when I am not. Most of the times I am just asking for explanation to make sure I got it right.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2013 08:12 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(25-07-2011 11:11 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  My question is, if we get to point where we can artificially create happiness, what are the moral ramifications of such a drug?

I'm rereading the last chapter of BNW, so i'm not grave digging a thread out of the blue.

It's called masturbation - in the literal and figurative sense. We masturbate for pleasure, rather than for procreation. We consume sweets, sugars, and fats for pleasure, rather than for energy and nutrients.

"Happiness" and "pleasure" is a natural byproduct for essential natural tasks. Stimulating it artificially is of no real concern. Abusing it, and becoming desensitised, or degenerative, or having it forced upon you to become placid and apathetic, and so easy to manipulate - that's when it becomes an issue.

"Consent and moderation." Would be a good way of summing it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 08:22 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(25-07-2011 11:11 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  With each new year, neuroscience better comprehends the chemical combinations that our brain produces in correlation to each separate emotion we feel. It isn't implausible therefore to assume that eventually we will have mastered the recreation of emotions and possibly produced a pill form that triggers these chemicals and causes the desired emotion.

More specifically, I'm referring to the drug called "Soma" in Huxley's "Brave New World" novel. If you're unfamiliar, Soma is basically a government issued drug that sends civilians into a state of euphoria and was regularly distributed after a work shift and rationed out to basically keep civilians docile.

"All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects."

My question is, if we get to point where we can artificially create happiness, what are the moral ramifications of such a drug? Is it better to live a natural life with fleeting moments of true, intense happiness? Or is it better to "make ourselves" permanently happy? A sort of euphoric dream state. An emotional coma. We would experience much less suffering, but we would miss out on the raw, exposed nerve ending sort of reality that life provides.

Personally, I think it's analogous to asking whether we should live 20 years on the roller coaster of life or live 40 years in a plastic bubble for our own protection.

Lol saw the title and was like "Soma!" but it looks like you guys covered that. BNW and Catcher In The Rye where the only two books of substance I had to read in school (read 1984 and some others on my own later).

Interesting tidbit though...

Huxley himself was an early user of LSD, he believed it should be reserved for the upperclass, educated elite and embraced it's mind expanding powers. On his deathbed he was administered a hit as per his request and died tripping.

I laugh every time I see the Soma lingerie commercials (I think thats what it was) I dunno if their marketing team is brilliant or ignorant.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 09:57 AM
Re: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Has anyone seen the film BrainCandy? Its a comedy film from the mid nineties by the Kids In The Hall guys. It's plot is about various odd characters after a happy drug was created and spread.

It actually looks at how people around react as plenty of people get upset others use it, the main specific I recall was just people mad at grungy rockstar for taking it and being cheerful.

Clearly some extreme humorous situations but it had me often assume a happy drug would be things people abuse often.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(26-07-2011 08:53 AM)lucradis Wrote:  Did someone say Soma?????
The video doesn't work. Here's a replacement.




Anyway, who needs drugs?
[Image: 934135_600063380012839_1163620319_n.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
It's actually not a "hypothetical".
A huge percentage of Americans take SSRI's, (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors).
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astou...1110203624
They're happy pills.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: