Happy people make the world better

[rjamortega]

Almost an unoffensive piece from Prager, until those final few words...

Happy people make the world better
Nov 8, 2005
by Dennis Prager ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A When you think about a Muslim suicide terrorist, is "happy" the first word you think of to describe him?

When you think about Nazis or Communists or Klansmen or child molesters, do you immediately think, "Now there are some happy people"?

Of course not.

It only takes a moment's thought to realize that while most unhappy people don't engage in evil, most evil is done by unhappy people. This is true on both the macro and the micro levels. We all know how much more likely we are to lash out at others when we are unhappy and how much we desire to make others feel good when we feel happy.

Given this association of evil with unhappy people, it is quite remarkable how little attention is paid to happiness as a moral, rather than only a personal psychological issue. Too often the pursuit of happiness (not the pursuit of fun or excitement) is regarded as a selfish pursuit, when in fact it is one of the best things a person can do for everyone in his life and for the world at large. The Founders of America were brilliant in many ways, not more so than by enshrining that pursuit alongside the pursuit of life and liberty.

(snip)

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/dennisprager/2005/11/08/174705.html

[towski]

He just can't help it, can he?

[::Major_Baker::]

Polls consistently show Republicans and religiously active Jews and Christians to be happier than Democrats and secular Americans. In light of the above, what does the preceding tell us about the good each group is likely to achieve?

this line?
Oh, prager....

[Platypus]

Polls consistently show Republicans and religiously active Jews and Christians to be happier than Democrats and secular Americans. In light of the above, what does the preceding tell us about the good each group is likely to achieve?
Nothing, unless acting happy is the only good that one can do. According to him I'd be a good person if I acted happy while punching him in the nose, but I doubt that theory would last beyond a single experiment.

[towski]

Well, RJ, I know you're just lurking in cyberspace, waiting to pounce on Prager criticism, so I'll feed the troll...

I think I can fairly easily breakdown Prager's column as follows:

When you think about a Muslim suicide terrorist, is "happy" the first word you think of to describe him?

When you think about Nazis or Communists or Klansmen or child molesters, do you immediately think, "Now there are some happy people"?

Of course not.

Filler, Filler, some tripe about leftists not caring that poor people are unhappy, just that they are poor, filler...

Polls consistently show Republicans and religiously active Jews and Christians to be happier than Democrats and secular Americans. In light of the above, what does the preceding tell us about the good each group is likely to achieve?

Therefore, Nazi's, Commies, Klansmen, & child molesters are roughly equivalent, on the Prager scale, to Democrats and Secular Americans.

Wraps up in a nice little bow, eh?

[::Major_Baker::]

Nothing, unless acting happy is the only good that one can do. According to him I'd be a good person if I acted happy while punching him in the nose, but I doubt that theory would last beyond a single experiment.
ahahahhahah! I actually might be midly amused while doing that...Good one Platy!

[Riddley]

Seriously, how would Prager veiw the flood of Prozac that we are immersed in all around the world? Is chemically induced happiness OK? I think it would be, there are problems when ones pills run out, of course but the moral duty to be happy is being fulfilled.

[rjamortega]

Nothing, unless acting happy is the only good that one can do. According to him I'd be a good person if I acted happy while punching him in the nose, but I doubt that theory would last beyond a single experiment.
Oh! Does he say acting happy? I thought it was being happy when I read it.

[rjamortega]

Well, RJ, I know you're just lurking in cyberspace, waiting to pounce on Prager criticism, so I'll feed the troll...

I think I can fairly easily breakdown Prager's column as follows:

Filler, Filler, some tripe about leftists not caring that poor people are unhappy, just that they are poor, filler...

Therefore, Nazi's, Commies, Klansmen, & child molesters are roughly equivalent, on the Prager scale, to Democrats and Secular Americans.

Wraps up in a nice little bow, eh?
Yeaaah, I knew that last part was going to shoot the whole thing down. But I saw a concept in there that made some sense and I thought I'd take the risk bouncing it off you.

I'd heard him elaborate on the part about how our happiness reflects on our family and friends. Makes sense to me anyway. Sorry gang. I've tried to get a rise out of you many other times, but I wasn't looking for it this time.

rjam "ametuer troll" ortega

[towski]

Yeaaah, I knew that last part was going to shoot the whole thing down. But I saw a concept in there that made some sense and I thought I'd take the risk bouncing it off you.

I'd heard him elaborate on the part about how our happiness reflects on our family and friends. Makes sense to me anyway. Sorry gang. I've tried to get a rise out of you many other times, but I wasn't looking for it this time.

rjam "ametuer troll" ortega

Honestly, I liked the part about happiness reflecting on our family and friends. And if he leaves it there, he's golden. But because he has to be a political pundit, he had to throw the last paragraph in. (I have another quibble with the leftists only focusing on the economics of poverty, but that's not really the point). What he ended up doing was reaching, and it didn't fit.

[Nuke the Oil]

I always thought of the Nazis as a (rather maniacally) happy bunch... until they started losing.

[Platypus]

Oh! Does he say acting happy? I thought it was being happy when I read it.
You should have read it before you posted it, then.
The notion that happiness (or at least acting happy) is a debt we owe to all those in our lives and even to society at large is foreign to the vast majority of people. Yet, the more time I have devoted to writing and lecturing on this issue, the more I have come to realize that this is indeed the case.
Nobody else can know whether you really are happy; they only know whether you appear happy. While some of what Prager says does address internal mental states, his Grand Conclusion (not counting the obvious anti-liberal crap in the coda) is clearly about external appearances.

[rjamortega]

You should have read it before you posted it, then.

Nobody else can know whether you really are happy; they only know whether you appear happy. While some of what Prager says does address internal mental states, his Grand Conclusion (not counting the obvious anti-liberal crap in the coda) is clearly about external appearances.
My gosh...always with the "big old meany" act, eh Plat? ;) :p

Of course I did read the piece before posting it but I have to admit to not having the best memory retention, and I will sometimes assume a general meaning to an authors message thereby possibly missing a particular detail. In this case I interpreted the message being that we had an obligation to the world to be happy. Call it a lazy mind or lower IQ, for whatever reason I didn't grasp that one point.

However let's look at that closer. I would say that once you hit him you were no longer acting happy. Such an action does not display to those around you an attitude of happiness. So it seems you may have also missed an important point of the author.

As for the appearance of happiness, I think that fits perfectly with the definition of the word 'obligation'. When we perform acts out of obligation we are rarely acting out of 'desire'. Commonly we are acting from the knowledge that we owe someone or something. We are acting for the greater good.

What do you think, Hot Shot? :cool:

[serenity]

Yeah, I think Praeger is more or less correct until his leap at the end--unfortunately, that little bit is likely the whole point of the essay--ironically, his desire to do harm, in his own way, sort of undercuts his point. He had me till then, though.

By way of comparison, look at a man like like Bishop Desmond Tutu. Mr. Tutu appears to be genuinely happy, his entire belief system is based on notions of forgiveness and compassion, and he insults nobody--including the people whom he obviously disagrees with politically (the Right wing, for example).

Praeger has a very good idea here--he should follow through with it, and embrace those he differs with. (perhaps he'd then be happier :) ) Then we could all maybe learn something from him, as we can from a man like Desmond Tutu.

[rjamortega]

Yeah, I think Praeger is more or less correct until his leap at the end--unfortunately, that little bit is likely the whole point of the essay--ironically, his desire to do harm, in his own way, sort of undercuts his point. He had me till then, though.

By way of comparison, look at a man like like Bishop Desmond Tutu. Mr. Tutu appears to be genuinely happy, his entire belief system is based on notions of forgiveness and compassion, and he insults nobody--including the people whom he obviously disagrees with politically (the Right wing, for example).

Praeger has a very good idea here--he should follow through with it, and embrace those he differs with. (perhaps he'd then be happier :) ) Then we could all maybe learn something from him, as we can from a man like Desmond Tutu.
Prager is addressing the culture war in nearly everything he does these days. That is why he always looks at the "Left". I've noticed the change come over him since he turned from his old roots of ethics and morality broadcasting to a more socio/political format. In presenting his essays these past few months it has become apparent to me that many of us do not fit neatly into the categories - Right and Left. As individuals we fall in and out of those general ranks. When he and other authors attack the Right and Left I think it is important that we look closely at the behaviour or mindset the attack is directed at. Then we will know if the attack is directed at us or not. I think we tend to get upset because we so closely associate with a side and forget that there are both sensible and extremist elements in the Left and Right. I'd say we each need to look at ourselves more closely to see where we fit and if we are extreme in that stance in relation to the accuser. If we are, it is not necessarily that we are wrong but that we are greatly apposed in other's eyes. It could very well be it is their problem. And if it is why should we be so torqued over it? And if the attack does not fit us, then why not just discuss the topic on its assertions and merits?

Does anyone know what I'm saying here? I think I just got lost. ...Let me put it this way. I see a lot of people here getting very disturbed over criticism directed at general political philosophy and stripes. I'm not sure why that is assuming we have open minds and we are in fact mainstream common people with a few alternative ideas. :confused:

So maybe some of us are not so common.(???)

[Soren]

You should have read it before you posted it, then.

Nobody else can know whether you really are happy; they only know whether you appear happy. While some of what Prager says does address internal mental states, his Grand Conclusion (not counting the obvious anti-liberal crap in the coda) is clearly about external appearances.A key distinction. Also problematic is the apparent assumption that happiness is independent of circumstances. While it is not utterly dependant on circumstances, it is not utterly independent of them either. Suddenly I'm thinking of the song:"Don't worry . . . be happy".

[towski]

Prager is addressing the culture war in nearly everything he does these days. That is why he always looks at the "Left". I've noticed the change come over him since he turned from his old roots of ethics and morality broadcasting to a more socio/political format. In presenting his essays these past few months it has become apparent to me that many of us do not fit neatly into the categories - Right and Left. As individuals we fall in and out of those general ranks. When he and other authors attack the Right and Left I think it is important that we look closely at the behaviour or mindset the attack is directed at. Then we will know if the attack is directed at us or not. I think we tend to get upset because we so closely associate with a side and forget that there are both sensible and extremist elements in the Left and Right. I'd say we each need to look at ourselves more closely to see where we fit and if we are extreme in that stance in relation to the accuser. If we are, it is not necessarily that we are wrong but that we are greatly apposed in other's eyes. It could very well be it is their problem. And if it is why should we be so torqued over it? And if the attack does not fit us, then why not just discuss the topic on its assertions and merits?

Does anyone know what I'm saying here? I think I just got lost. ...Let me put it this way. I see a lot of people here getting very disturbed over criticism directed at general political philosophy and stripes. I'm not sure why that is assuming we have open minds and we are in fact mainstream common people with a few alternative ideas. :confused:

So maybe some of us are not so common.(???)

I completely followed you. I feel the same, and I like to think our little debates on here have had an influence on how we both feel about the other side...

[nogoodname90]

Negative people make the world go round because they notice screw ups and things that people do wrong and problems

[rjamortega]

Negative people make the world go round because they notice screw ups and things that people do wrong and problems
They may make the world go round but they sure don't make it a fun ride for the rest of us.

[DRMIZER]

Almost an unoffensive piece from Prager, until those final few words...

Happy people make the world better
Nov 8, 2005
by Dennis Prager ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A When you think about a Muslim suicide terrorist, is "happy" the first word you think of to describe him?

When you think about Nazis or Communists or Klansmen or child molesters, do you immediately think, "Now there are some happy people"?

Of course not.

It only takes a moment's thought to realize that while most unhappy people don't engage in evil, most evil is done by unhappy people. This is true on both the macro and the micro levels. We all know how much more likely we are to lash out at others when we are unhappy and how much we desire to make others feel good when we feel happy.

Given this association of evil with unhappy people, it is quite remarkable how little attention is paid to happiness as a moral, rather than only a personal psychological issue. Too often the pursuit of happiness (not the pursuit of fun or excitement) is regarded as a selfish pursuit, when in fact it is one of the best things a person can do for everyone in his life and for the world at large. The Founders of America were brilliant in many ways, not more so than by enshrining that pursuit alongside the pursuit of life and liberty.

(snip)

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/dennisprager/2005/11/08/174705.htmlAre you trying to say Prager is not as brilliant as he thinks he is? You're going to disappoint a large number of Pragerists.