The Value of Choice/Freedom

[Xyan]

The key word is "You are very happy and enjoy life."

Definitely A.

A happy and enjoyable life overwrites all considerations.

 

[demokratickid]

Happiness outweighs the fear and possibility of choosing personal devastation.

 

[aneeshm]

I considered that issue, but I figured that your propensity to oppose the freedom revoked in Scenario A would be directly dependent on your answer to this question.

For all intents and purposes, take it at face value as you are simply happier in Scenario A than Scenario B. Let's say, with or without the illusion if it's still an important matter for you.

Under these constraints, of course Scenario A.

In real life, Scenario B.

 

[History_Buff]

If presented the choice like it is here, Scenario A. If I had simply been born into it, I might not be so sure, but realistically, if I'm well fed and having fun, I don't think I'd see a need to fight a lack of choice based on the principle of thing. I'm a big peasant like that

 

[chauism]

If you have B, you have A

How does B exclude A's benefits while increasing options over A? Does B leave me free to leave B? Dont know, not enough info.

Two examples, China and India. You know where those two fits.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Sounds to me like "Do you want to live in heaven and believe you are in hell, or do you want to live in hell and believe you are in heaven", since you can know no reality except your own I'll go with believing I am in heaven.

 

[sourboy]

There is no freedom in scenario 1, thus scenario 2 has a limitless potential.

 

[chauism]

There is no freedom in scenario 1, thus scenario 2 has a limitless potential.

The devil you know is better than the one you don't. The potential you refers to can be the potential for total disaster(Russia for example).

 

[Sidhe]

B with more freedoms, more people on average would be happy, so to sacrifice some of my happiness for the whole would be no great hardship. Given the choice I'd rather live in Venezuela than in Cuba.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

You said:

the best choice and the best possible outcome is notably worse than in Scenario A

So this boils down to the question if there is some sort of universal value in 'freedom' that makes it worth being miserable to have.

No there isn't, the whole concept is absurd.

 

[Sidhe]

You said:



So this boils down to the question if there is some sort of universal value in 'freedom' that makes it worth being miserable to have.

No there isn't, the whole concept is absurd.

It is if you take it at face value, but a society as restrictive as scenario A is doomed to failure, human nature suggests the world favours freedom of choice, speech and belief to some significant extent. Governments which don't have this tend to fail or be in transition to democracy.

If you take it at face value, yes I suppose you would go for scenario A, but scenario A does not exist in a vacuum in reality and could never exist. So I'd say that it's either a pointlessly theoretical question, or if it has some practical aspect answer B is the more likely to be favoured in the long term.

Since I can't answer A as it's absurd, B is the only answer I can give that has any baring on the real world.

 

[sourboy]

The devil you know is better than the one you don't. The potential you refers to can be the potential for total disaster(Russia for example).

I'd rather have the freedom to make my own choices, then to be restricted to someone(s) elses designed lifestyle. Besides, there's only a devil if it's implemented into scenario 1, as it surely woudn't be in my own scenario 2 -- case & point, ftw.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

It is if you take it at face value, but a society as restrictive as scenario A is doomed to failure, human nature suggests the world favours freedom of choice, speech and belief to some significant extent. Governments which don't have this tend to fail or be in transition to democracy.

Scenario A has been the global de facto rule before the 1950's.

If you take it at face value, yes I suppose you would go for scenario A, but scenario A does not exist in a vacuum in reality and could never exist. So I'd say that it's either a pointlessly theoretical question, or if it has some practical aspect answer B is the more likely to be favoured in the long term.

A has existed before. And I do not agree that something that makes you miserable will be favoured, especially not in the long term. There is no value in freedom except for what we put there and in this scenario it is stated that it is not highly valued.

Since I can't answer A as it's absurd, B is the only answer I can give that has any baring on the real world.

Why is being happy without having endless choises absurd?

 

[Sidhe]

Scenario A has been the global de facto rule before the 1950's.

What you mean in China and Russia?

A has existed before. And I do not agree that something that makes you miserable will be favoured, especially not in the long term. There is no value in freedom except for what we put there and in this scenario it is stated that it is not highly valued.

It doesn't say it makes you miserable just that you wont be as happy as A.

Why is being happy without having endless choises absurd?

I think the point is clear, A is unlikely to exist for any great period of time in the modern world. Thus it is absurd to place the precondition that B will not turn out better than A, because reality shows otherwise.

If having more freedom makes people unhappier than being very restricted then the experiments preconditions are also flawed as that is seldom the case.

I'd show you the happiest countries in the world, from Scientific American, but its buried in the Archives and I don't have a subscription. Suffice to say the top 30 are almost all democracies, although worryingly the US only just slipped in at no 28 and was beaten by India IIRC.

Britain was third, Ireland was 1st according to the study. Criteria was happiness with government ( article was pre Bush Jr under Bill Clinton, or very early Bush I forget which) happiness in general, economic happiness, and various other political considerations and social implications. 1000 people from all walks of life and every socio- economic class were polled. Fact is freedom is an essential part of happiness. Have you noticed the bonuses you get with it in CIV, that's not a coincidence, free speech, free religion, representation.

 

[Mise]

It depends how notable "notable" is, obviously. I value freedom sufficiently that I would sacrifice other things that make me happy to attain a certain level of freedom.

NB:
1) The implication is that freedom also makes me happy. If in Scenario B, when you use the word "happiness", you have already taken into account the fact that freedom makes me happy, and that level of happiness still falls lower than in Scenario A, then obviously I would choose A. But I took "happiness" to exclude the part of happiness that is derived from being free.

2) The other implication is that freedom vs happiness is not a linear function, and tails off. So the small amount of freedom in Situation A may be worth more than the additional (large) amount of freedom in Situation B.

 

[Defiant47]

There is no freedom in scenario 1, thus scenario 2 has a limitless potential.

Except for what's been postulated by the question...

B with more freedoms, more people on average would be happy, so to sacrifice some of my happiness for the whole would be no great hardship. Given the choice I'd rather live in Venezuela than in Cuba.

You will notice I said something along the lines of you being in the same boat as everyone else, both cases. No, on A, since everyone is happier, then more people on average would be happier.

It doesn't say it makes you miserable just that you wont be as happy as A.

Correct.

I think the point is clear, A is unlikely to exist for any great period of time in the modern world. Thus it is absurd to place the precondition that B will not turn out better than A, because reality shows otherwise.

I will have to disagree. (you will soon know why as I open another thread)

If having more freedom makes people unhappier than being very restricted then the experiments preconditions are also flawed as that is seldom the case.

Having more freedom does not make people unhappier. All of the factors of happiness accumulate to A being happier than B. Somewhere above someone asked me about the illusion of free will. Imagine that even without an illusion, and you being pissed off at the government and trying to take it down, you still live a happier life and don't even know it (otherwise you wouldn't be trying to destroy it... or would you?).

I'd show you the happiest countries in the world, from Scientific American, but its buried in the Archives and I don't have a subscription. Suffice to say the top 30 are almost all democracies, although worryingly the US only just slipped in at no 28 and was beaten by India IIRC.

Britain was third, Ireland was 1st according to the study. Criteria was happiness with government ( article was pre Bush Jr under Bill Clinton, or very early Bush I forget which) happiness in general, economic happiness, and various other political considerations and social implications. 1000 people from all walks of life and every socio- economic class were polled. Fact is freedom is an essential part of happiness. Have you noticed the bonuses you get with it in CIV, that's not a coincidence, free speech, free religion, representation.

Imagine how that would have looked if communism had won instead.

It depends how notable "notable" is, obviously. I value freedom sufficiently that I would sacrifice other things that make me happy to attain a certain level of freedom.

I can't describe exactly how much notable is, obviously, as the question is designed to be general. I can only tell you that it is not "slight" so as to be close to insignificant, and it's not "drastic" as for example 3rd to 1st world. It's notable, it's in-between. It's such that when comparing the lifestyles of A and B (ignoring other conditions), it would be a no-brainer to prefer to move to and live in A.

NB:
1) The implication is that freedom also makes me happy. If in Scenario B, when you use the word "happiness", you have already taken into account the fact that freedom makes me happy, and that level of happiness still falls lower than in Scenario A, then obviously I would choose A. But I took "happiness" to exclude the part of happiness that is derived from being free.

You are correct in your first assertion. Both happiness values take into account all factors, including happiness derived from freedom.

2) The other implication is that freedom vs happiness is not a linear function, and tails off. So the small amount of freedom in Situation A may be worth more than the additional (large) amount of freedom in Situation B.

If this is so for you, perhaps. But the above answer is about the best I can do until I'd get undesirably specific.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

What you mean in China and Russia?

No, I mean the world. Universal suffrage came when, the 70's?

It doesn't say it makes you miserable just that you wont be as happy as A.

Well, notably less happy then.

I think the point is clear, A is unlikely to exist for any great period of time in the modern world. Thus it is absurd to place the precondition that B will not turn out better than A, because reality shows otherwise.

The 'modern world' with its freedoms is 30-50 years old. Bit too early to draw any conclusions.

 

[Perfection]

I CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE CHOICE

 

[Newbunkle]

B. If you have few choices but you're kept alive, then you're being treated like a pet or prisoner. A well taken care of prisoner is still a prisoner.

 

[chauism]

I'd rather have the freedom to make my own choices, then to be restricted to someone(s) elses designed lifestyle. Besides, there's only a devil if it's implemented into scenario 1, as it surely woudn't be in my own scenario 2 -- case & point, ftw.

I think in Scenario 1, not every choice and freedom is limited. Otherwise how can everyone be happy.

Anyways, not every choice you make is right one and sometime it will lead to disastrous results. I have been always wondering what if a society is run as a corporation would, because if you run a corporation with democracy and freedom, then it will be bankrupted in no time. Technocracy in my opinion is still the best way for a society to progress in a right direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29