The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(21-08-2013 12:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

If you have taken them you'll know they are NOT happy pills. They are numbing pills, and they don't fix what is wrong underneath everything.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 10:33 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Umm, what if the happy drug was made entirely of healthy fruits and veggies, like in this dilbert comic:
[Image: 26321.strip.gif]
It probably would be moral if it just made you happy, and it was healthy, without sociopathic effects.
Drooling

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
23-08-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(21-08-2013 09:57 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
24-08-2013, 03:53 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Neither happy nor numbing be they.

They make the abyss bearable which gives you the chance to work on your metaphysics.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2013, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013 04:51 AM by cheapthrillseaker.)
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Didn't they test that on a rat? One lever dispensing food and the other dispensing a pleasurable feeling. From what I remember, the rat starved to death.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 07:23 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(24-08-2013 04:48 AM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Didn't they test that on a rat? One lever dispensing food and the other dispensing a pleasurable feeling. From what I remember, the rat starved to death.

Your talking about the old post I made in this thread years ago? Yeah. The experiment with the wire going to the pleasure center of the brain was done in rats. Thats where the story idea came from.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(26-07-2011 04:21 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  *snip*

I'm gonna go out on a limb though and say that if such a drug were commercially available people WOULD NOT be left alone to make there own decision. People would didn't take it would jump to some non-existent moral high ground (think smoking) and campaign against the drug (most probably in the belief that because they think a drug-less is more fulfilling that it objectively is more fulfilling and therefore they are saving users from an 'unfilled' life), the silent majority would be ignored in favour of a retarded minority, the press would jump on the bandwagon, the one dubiously credible report that said there may be a slight health risk would be widely quoted whilst the thousand credible report say there were no health risks would be ignored (think MMR), the Government (despite knowing it was safe and having no moral objections) would have no choice but to appear to act leading to ridiculously high taxes on the drug and an eventually ban. The retarded minority would claim to have 'saved the worlds children' while no-one would realise how stupid the whole episode was, the press would jump on the next ridiculous bandwagon.

You hit it right on the head....
Frighteningly accurate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2013, 06:48 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
(24-08-2013 03:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  Neither happy nor numbing be they.

They make the abyss bearable which gives you the chance to work on your metaphysics.

Now it would seem you are referring to anti-anxiety/depression medications. If that is correct you are absolutely correct, but did the discussion ever differentiate between restoring "normal" neruochemical balances or inducing an artificial state of happiness/numbness/altered awareness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2013, 08:36 AM
RE: The moral quandary of a "happy" drug
Does this happy drug interfere with normal functioning/reasoning?

If not, I am all for it.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: