NationStates Jolt Archive

I've run into the mere addition paradox (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox)) a couple of times, and lately have started to believe that the argument is sound.

But if the argument is sound, I'm lead to the conclusion that our culture overvalues human life; that merely being alive is worthless unless the quality of life is great enough. After all, if you set the zero of happiness high enough, mere addition doesn't seem so bad.
So... Is the argument sound? If so, where should the zero of happiness be set? I'm curious as to what people think.

That's intriguing, and I'll have to think about that a bit. It may very well be a sound argument, as counter-intuitive as it is.

I've run into the mere addition paradox (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox)) a couple of times, and lately have started to believe that the argument is sound.

But if the argument is sound, I'm lead to the conclusion that our culture overvalues human life; that merely being alive is worthless unless the quality of life is great enough. After all, if you set the zero of happiness high enough, mere addition doesn't seem so bad.
So... Is the argument sound? If so, where should the zero of happiness be set? I'm curious as to what people think.


Actually the argument is rather weak for one simple reason; what is happiness? It's different for everybody. To lump everybody underone group is impossible.

For example, I have known people with nothing(Rwandans)
and I have known people that have just about everything.

The people how had nothing were happy and the ones that had everything were misserable and bitchy.

Life should never be devalued. Such devaluation is what allows for racism. Who is going to define what life is more valuable then the other?

The fact that the author makes this claim probably suggests, he has never visted a third world nation were life is cheap.

People argue that a society can't take care of everybody. Such people are usually limited in the view of the "whole picture." They only have their own agenda at heart.

The fact is you can't take care of everybody. There are some that will never advance from a certain position. However, we must learn to notice these people vs ones that for whatever reason fell on bad times. A little bit of tax money for short turn aid can gain long value.

Rather then ramble. Let's just end with if we are ever to get past war and racism; it will have to be when people say "us" versus "I, me, and mine."

psycho-babble

Actually the argument is rather weak for one simple reason; what is happiness? It's different for everybody. To lump everybody underone group is impossible.

For example, I have known people with nothing(Rwandans)
and I have known people that have just about everything.

The people how had nothing were happy and the ones that had everything were misserable and bitchy.


I'll admit that measuring happiness is a problem. If I understand right, your objection is that you can't compare, say, my happiness to yours. The best I can come up with is to let people rate their own happiness on some scale. Certainly happiness is mostly an internal thing, so you should be the best judge of how happy you are. Certainly, no one could disagree with how happy they're rated in that case.

I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to the argument, but I could be wrong...

Well, if we want to debate happiness, all we have to look at is Brave New World. Everyone thinks they're happy, so they must be!

That "paradox" is actually useless. Lets use its logic in other places.

1) The Patriots are beaten by the Browns 32-0
2) The Cardinals beat the Browns 18-0
3) Both the Patriots and the Browns are otherwise unbeaten, and defeat every other team in the league (Minus the Cardinals).

Logically then the Cardinals can expect (by that paradox) to win every game 50-0. To make another analogy.

1) The English defeat a Swedish invasion.
2) The Swedish defeat a German invasion.
3) The Germans defeat a Russian invasion

By this logic then, the Russian's cannot invade Sweden or England and win.


Its an absolutely useless paradox.

The problem with this is if you make the assumption that all of that number are equally worthy to live.

Is a billion Hitlers more valuable than one ghandi?

Thank the Universe that there some things that remain unquantifiable.


Honestly, where's your sense of mystery?