Silly Pengins
08-05-2007, 23:59
Moved from the "gameplay" section.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario: There are two countries. In both countries, the citizens live in poverty. In the one, the government oppresses the press, speech, etc. and tells the people that the way they live is great. So the people in that country are happy. In the other, the citizens can learn and talk as they will, and all know how much their lives suck. They are very unhappy.
Which is better.
Argument for Happy and oppressed:
Freedom's only purpose is so people can be happy. If they aren't free, but are still really happy, that's good enough.
Counter argument:
If you're not free, it's not true happiness. And maybe the people who are free are able to find new sources of wealth, whereas the oppressed people are stuck the way they are.
Countercounter argument:
Happiness is just an emotion, it's the same one way or the other. Plus, it was never said that the government of the oppressed country forces them into their jobs; it just stops them from saying what they want. Probably, since both countries are poor, the people really don't have the oppurtunities to get rich.
Countercountercounter argument:
True love is different than love, is it not? Perhaps the reason for the country's poverty is a bad government. The free people could overthrow the government and make the whole country richer.
Countercountercountercounter argument:
Society created love, and so it can tell people whether it's true or not, just as the government of the oppressed country could tell it's people they are truly happy. Even if the poor, free country gets rich, will the citizens still be happy? There will always be more wealth to obtain, so unless they're communists and don't value money, then even if they're rich they'll still be unhappy.
I got the most obvious points out of the way to avoid confusion. Now I want to hear what other people think. I'm leaning towards happy over free
Imagine this hypothetical scenario: There are two countries. In both countries, the citizens live in poverty. In the one, the government oppresses the press, speech, etc. and tells the people that the way they live is great. So the people in that country are happy. In the other, the citizens can learn and talk as they will, and all know how much their lives suck. They are very unhappy.
Which is better.
Argument for Happy and oppressed:
Freedom's only purpose is so people can be happy. If they aren't free, but are still really happy, that's good enough.
Counter argument:
If you're not free, it's not true happiness. And maybe the people who are free are able to find new sources of wealth, whereas the oppressed people are stuck the way they are.
Countercounter argument:
Happiness is just an emotion, it's the same one way or the other. Plus, it was never said that the government of the oppressed country forces them into their jobs; it just stops them from saying what they want. Probably, since both countries are poor, the people really don't have the oppurtunities to get rich.
Countercountercounter argument:
True love is different than love, is it not? Perhaps the reason for the country's poverty is a bad government. The free people could overthrow the government and make the whole country richer.
Countercountercountercounter argument:
Society created love, and so it can tell people whether it's true or not, just as the government of the oppressed country could tell it's people they are truly happy. Even if the poor, free country gets rich, will the citizens still be happy? There will always be more wealth to obtain, so unless they're communists and don't value money, then even if they're rich they'll still be unhappy.
I got the most obvious points out of the way to avoid confusion. Now I want to hear what other people think. I'm leaning towards happy over free