wenglund wrote:However, economist would suggest that ultimately we are driven by a desire to be happy. Educators all over the world would suggest that most people have an inate motive to grow in knowledge and abilities--I.e. we are inclined towards maturation. Medical practicioners would suggest that, for the most part, we desire to be healthy. And, the very social nature of societies would suggest that, by and large, we desire to have fufilling interpersonal relationships, or in other words we desire to love and be loved.
Granted, these four things may mean somewhat different things to different people. In certain cases, what may make one person "happy", may not make another person "happy". What may be considered "mature" to one person, may not be "mature" to another, and so on and so forth.
Even still, I think there is enough in common in what these things mean to us so as to still make them useful as mutually acceptable standards. Agreed?
Also, I would suggest that these four things are interdependant. Happiness is to some degree contingient upon one's maturation, health, and the love one experiences. Likewise, one's maturation is contingient upon one's happiness, health, and loving relationships, and so on and so forth. Agreed.
If so, then I would submit these four thing combined might be our mutually acceptible standard. Agreed?
The question then remains: how do we measure the happiness, maturation, health, and love, of individuals and societies?
Well, since economist are the ones suggesting that we are universally driven by the desire to be "happy", then wouldn't it make at least some sense to use economic measurements of "happiness"--I.e. at a macro level measure happiness via the strength of the respective economies? Likewise, wouldn't it make some sense to measure "maturation" in terms of growth in knowledge and abilities? Wouldn't it make sense to measure health by looking at a variety of medical measurements--such as longevity, physical and mental wellness, etc.? Wouldn't is make some sense to measure "love" by looking at the strength of interpersonal relationships, particular in terms of families?
What do you think?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
This is very difficult to quantify, Wade. Christianity is not some monolithic entity that affects everyone the same way. I would say Protestant Christianity has contributed to Western notions of self-reliance and freedom, which coupled with capitalism, have driven economic development and thus, in your formula, happiness.
But go to Latin America, where Christianity is represented for the most part by a conservative church that, with its teachings on fatalism, has contributed to oligarchy and dictatorship, thus hindering economic development and stunting the growth of happiness.
Granted, these are broad examples (but then I think you were looking for broad examples).
And just for the record, the cleavage was nice, and so was the sip I had of KA's Long Island Iced Tea.