I was reminded of utilitarianism in general, but particularly this, even if it only half-relates to the subject. Not that I agree with any of Mill's assertions.Mill's major contribution to utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to more physical forms of pleasure. Mill distinguishes between happiness and contentment, claiming that the former is of higher value than the latter, a belief wittily encapsulated in the statement that "[i]t is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
A good portion of medical science no doubt works by approximation due to limitations, as do most things. Yet, it usually works. Even if we can't determine with exact precision how happy a person is through various means, a rough estimate can still be adequate. If you assume that humans bear some similarity to one another then there is no reason that you could not glean something from the collected data, if properly sampled.
Unless you're saying we are all so unique to one another that it is impossible to even obtain a basic idea of these sorts of things. It's sort of out of my league to debunk an assumption like that.
Originally Posted by Andromeda
Bookmarks