Right, if they already value security, then I need to convince them that my pact will provide what they desire. If they don't already value security, then I need to change what they desire. Either way, I'm working with their emotions to create some change.
Sure. One of my basic criticisms which will probably come up later is that you try to divorce emotion from reason, whereas I would say that they are closely intertwined. Of course this ultimately depends on the extent to which certain desires are universal.
Oooh! That is a good point. A person suffering from depression doesn't derive pleasure where they used to, so in a philosophical sense it could be seen as a sort of aimless state where there is nothing to motivate action. It's probably part of the reason that such people suffer from a lack of appetite. Feel free to run with this. I might have to make a big shift in my thinking based on that. I might.
I certainly agree with this, though I'm not sure how it would throw a wrench in your system. If you were arguing that despair is a counterexample to the idea that desire is ordered to fulfillment then this would affect that argument, but it doesn't strike me as having far-reaching implications.
The thing I want to draw out of it is the idea that a despairing, desireless state is a pathological state. The normal human state includes desires, even desires as simple as an appetite for food.
Yeah, that's probably me just getting ahead of us thinking about the problems that are going to arise.
And they might.
Because I can imagine myself not doing what I desire. I know that I won't, but it isn't impossible to comprehend. It would be easier to equate "I desire X" with "I will pursue X".
The claim of equivalence that I made is as follows, "If you tell someone, 'Doing this will make you happier than not doing it,' you are saying, 'You should do this.'" I am happy with the "pursuit" proposition. What's key is that the desires we in fact have propel us to pursuit and action.
The question "Why should I do X?" doesn't always have the answer "Because it will make you happy" does it?
I tend to think it does, either short term or long term. I suppose deontology and acting for the common good both raise difficult issues. For example, refusing to lie in any circumstance, and a willingness to die for your country in combat. My initial response would be that in the first example the person places a high value on truth and honesty, and would be unhappy living without integrity. In the second example the happiness of the country is deemed more important than personal happiness. The second case is more difficult, but the desire-fulfillment dynamic still obtains.
Yeah, tell that to flat-earthers. I wish that was a rare exception to your rule, but it's ridiculously common now. They can look at all the evidence you've got and still declare it's flat. Because what is true is not the priority for them. Evidence and argumentation are secondary to valuing the happiness they derive from disagreeing. While I agree that people just do what they desire, I cannot agree that people just do believe what is true, regardless of the evidence.
There are two issues here. The first issue is that I do not believe it is ultimately based on "the happiness they derive from disagreeing," even if contrariety can be addictive in its own way. In many such cases you have opposed premises. They are assenting to what they believe to be divine revelation, which for them outweighs scientific evidence.
They second issue is that they may simply not be seeking the truth. People who don't seek the truth don't see the truth, and you can't make them see it because they aren't seeking it, but if they did see it they would believe it. ..Or so I think. Here is an excerpt from this past Sunday's readings, after the apostles ask Jesus why he speaks in parables:
"This is why I speak to them in parables, because
they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:
You shall indeed hear but not understand,
you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people,
they will hardly hear with their ears,
they have closed their eyes,
lest they see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts and be converted,
and I heal them."
I don't see where this is going either. It's too weird of an analogy. Honestly, I'm surprised you aren't focusing on the intrinsic goodness of the sensation of pleasure. I thought I was giving you an opening.
Haha, well maybe I should accept your premise for the sake of argument. Maybe I will if worse comes to worst.
Again, I think this was covered earlier. I think some of these points are collapsing in on one another. I took a lot of extra time to think about your post so that I could make my responses more terse. The rabbit trails were admittedly making it more difficult for me to keep track of the flow of our conversation. If I failed to address something important, let me know.
Thanks for shortening the conversation, I appreciate it. It seems fine to me but I may come back to certain things if they become pertinent.
I suppose we should decide on what exactly it is that we are disagreeing about.
Earlier I said:
You seem to want to accept Hume's dichotomy and also do away with "ought" altogether,...
That is, you accept the is-ought dichotomy, you believe there are no universal "oughts," you think emotion is arbitrary and usually enters argument in the form of manipulation, etc. Is that accurate? How would you describe our disagreement?
I do think we still need to talk about this:
What we need to talk about is how discursive reasoning and automatic human nature relate. I alluded to it above with the idea of foundational premises, but I think this is one of the central questions. For example, if we fully believe something to be true then we cannot help but believe it. That is basically not a moral or praiseworthy "transition." It's just what happens. Similarly, it is not morally praiseworthy that we desire happiness, nor is it at all volitional. That's just the way we are. It's just a starting point. Anyway, I won't say more in this ever-lengthening post.
(i.e. Final causality)