Genuine happiness and environmental responsibility

        What is the correlation between ethically doing the right thing and genuine happiness?   The top 10 happiest countries according to U.N. World Happiness Report, (USA 17), with the exception of one or two, are also the top 10 most responsible countries according the Environmental Performance Index (USA 49).    Does individual and social responsibility lead to happiness?    The World Happiness Report outlines many ethical factors that impact happiness.  This is intriguing as most persons in U.S. have a tendency to value material wealth over spiritual wealth or over all well-being.  Has anyone in the class traveled to Europe or any of the Scandinavian countries; if so what is it about the overall culture that struck you as very different from American "culture"?  

Logic deep down in the 'Rabbit Hole'

Envision a cascade of Chagalian like angels in corporate regalia descending upon infinite rows of corpulent insatiable mass appetites.   The nest-like babies widen their mouths to receive spoon fed portions of ‘junk science’ all the while humming along to mantras in the form of lullabies.   

The idea that the ‘denial industry’ is some other entity that we must overcome or plead with for transparency is a passive tendency masquerading as genuine concern.   In reality, there is no hard line between us and them, we are the denial industry; each individual, every one of us, matters as an instrument of change, we are both means and ends.  

(The above illustrates a reaction to an often frustrating issue; the absence of logic in everyday thinking - that thin line between knowledge and paralysis, between theory and practice, between 'what's it matter' and actual paradigm shifts in thinking, ethics and action   Though the lines above seemingly condemn persons that embrace the ignorance defense, they actually represent an honest examination into what compels people to act contrary to how they know they ought to act.   The idea is to empower all people and not alienate them through rhetoric.  In this way perhaps more people may feel compelled to act with common sense and responsibility.) 

We often use the argument from ignorance defense on vital issues that may involve compromise, or rethinking how we live our lives - creating a logic language barrier of sorts; we pretend not to understand the terms.   This adaptive technique may be predicated on arrogance as Sebastian suggests.   So what are some real life changes we can make to encourage all people (with the capacity) to embrace innate common sense and eschew 'junk science'?   

Internal and External Incentive

Extrinsic motivation may actually suppress intrinsic motivation and therefore have a negative affect on human behavior and development.      One possible view of an extrinsic incentive is that it may reflect a narcissistic self-entitlement; ie in order for us to act with common sense we have to receive extrinsic rewards.   So, our desire in this sense is for reward, and as such we condition ourselves that everything should be this way - our actions are then governed by extrinsic desire for reward and not intrinsic passion, we run a great risk of becoming indifferent or apathetic to real problems.   It's easy to see how this type of thinking can quickly become life-negating.    Though it seems attractive at first glance, it ironically negates free-will and self-examination and therefore denies us the opportunity to empower ourselves.   The danger is that we may look to the 'other' for what we can rightly discover in ourselves.  Another view is that we might reevaluate what the term incentive means.   Perhaps an incentive may come in the form of self-improvement; igniting our passion to become well-rounded individuals that develop nurturing characteristics of empathy and compassion.  Internalizing this idea of incentive seems a powerful way to develop and express passion and individual creativity.   It may also reduce our reliance on the 'other'.   

Response to Abbey, "Stewardship"

While in theory and perhaps in some applications humans treat other humans well, I think we can do a lot more in ways of fairness, education, opportunity, health, and the fulfillment of basic human needs – but I think the essence of the quote is meaningful; that we aspire to treat other humans with respect and as beings that possess inherent value, and that we might extend this concern to others, e.g., animals, and environment.   

The idea that humans have always done something (hunting in this case) somehow translates to a universal moral code of conduct - that it is always right for humans to hunt - presupposes that we might justify other types of (immoral) behaviour (slavery for instance) on this same premise.   I think we have to constantly re-examine our behaviour; and we might justify our actions based on sound reasoning and principles that reflect thoughtful and rational consideration, and not on claims that simply because we have always acted in a certain manner that somehow makes it right or morally justifiable.  

If humans are at the top of the food chain, as you suggest, does that mean we may exploit other ‘lesser’ animals to satisfy our interests, or might it mean something else?   Do we have duties towards others that might conflict with our appetites?   I think a lot of us want to strike a balance between our intuitions that we have some duties to animals (at the very least not to cause suffering) and the satisfaction of our interests; e.g., designating animals as food.   Yet, it seems a difficult proposition for us to respect animals, accept a position of sameness, and care for the ethical treatment of animals all the while denying them a basic natural life and designating living animals as property.   In this sense we deny animals the very thing that we consider fundamental for us; that we belong to ourselves, as Locke says, we are the property of ourselves. This creates an interesting dilemma; if animals have a right to their being, (life), as property, (unless we deny that animals have a right to live their own lives) how is it that we may override their concerns for our interests?    Dominance is one possible answer; but not a satisfactory one.