To be right or to be happy?

[Geneviev]

I don't think anyone is in favor of that. But sometimes there are cases in which it's better to not know the truth, in my opinion. It's not necessarily mindless or unquestioning though.

But is it 'happiness' or just 'ignorance of the alternatives'? Your person in the OP, with their religion; who is to say they would not be happier having heard of and discovered another way to seek religion, or no religion at all? Certainly not you or I. That is the one reality they know. They cannot judge, they cannot choose if they are happy, or if they have just not heard of other options.

Say you have only ever eaten one meal your whole life. It's not a bad meal. You like it well enough. You don't know there are others. You consider yourself happy. Would it not be better, for your mind and your body, to be offered a whole palate of different options? And, if you were, might you not realise you weren't happy at all -- you just didn't know what you were missing?

Maybe they do know other religions and already chose this one. I didn't think about the hypothetical enough to establish that. In that case, we wouldn't have the right to interfere with their beliefs. Just like, if I decided that I only like one meal, no one should force me to eat anything else.

I don't think anyone is in favor of that. But sometimes there are cases in which it's better to not know the truth, in my opinion. It's not necessarily mindless or unquestioning though.

Happiness is worthless compared to the truth, though.

Is it really?

[HXVZ-07031017]

But is it 'happiness' or just 'ignorance of the alternatives'? Your person in the OP, with their religion; who is to say they would not be happier having heard of and discovered another way to seek religion, or no religion at all? Certainly not you or I. That is the one reality they know. They cannot judge, they cannot choose if they are happy, or if they have just not heard of other options.

Say you have only ever eaten one meal your whole life. It's not a bad meal. You like it well enough. You don't know there are others. You consider yourself happy. Would it not be better, for your mind and your body, to be offered a whole palate of different options? And, if you were, might you not realise you weren't happy at all -- you just didn't know what you were missing?

Maybe they do know other religions and already chose this one. I didn't think about the hypothetical enough to establish that. In that case, we wouldn't have the right to interfere with their beliefs. Just like, if I decided that I only like one meal, no one should force me to eat anything else.

Happiness is worthless compared to the truth, though.

Is it really?

Yes, it is. And it is shameful how happiness is valued above truth, since pursuing happiness above all else is hedonistic and egotistic, compared to pursuing truth.

[The Free Joy State]

But is it 'happiness' or just 'ignorance of the alternatives'? Your person in the OP, with their religion; who is to say they would not be happier having heard of and discovered another way to seek religion, or no religion at all? Certainly not you or I. That is the one reality they know. They cannot judge, they cannot choose if they are happy, or if they have just not heard of other options.

Say you have only ever eaten one meal your whole life. It's not a bad meal. You like it well enough. You don't know there are others. You consider yourself happy. Would it not be better, for your mind and your body, to be offered a whole palate of different options? And, if you were, might you not realise you weren't happy at all -- you just didn't know what you were missing?

Maybe they do know other religions and already chose this one. I didn't think about the hypothetical enough to establish that. In that case, we wouldn't have the right to interfere with their beliefs. Just like, if I decided that I only like one meal, no one should force me to eat anything else.

That wasn't the hypothetical presented to you. You'd only been offered that one meal (which, for the record, means you can't be getting the nutrients you need). How do you know if you like others? How can you know if you're happy?

If your hypothetical person knows of other religions, where would the harm be in discussing their existence with them? The proposition they must never be discussed in case the person starts to doubt their own beliefs suggests they cannot have been heard of before, and -- therefore -- that they cannot have had the opportunity to judge for themselves if they truly believe or are happy in those beliefs.

Unless you think capable, competent, adult people should be treated in the way you may talk to a four year old who said their hamster jumped over the house: "Did they, sweetie? That's nice"?

But to do that, to perpetually infantilise... that doesn't show respect. Not for the person, or for their beliefs.

BTW: You have a duty to tell the people who haven't heard of COVID, too. You know where they are. If you do, others do. And not everyone is responsible (there have even been cases of people deliberately spitting on others since the virus began). You have a duty to warn them. Will it make them less happy, certainly. Will it make them take precautions that may save them, one can only hope.

[Geneviev]

Maybe they do know other religions and already chose this one. I didn't think about the hypothetical enough to establish that. In that case, we wouldn't have the right to interfere with their beliefs. Just like, if I decided that I only like one meal, no one should force me to eat anything else.


Is it really?

Yes, it is. And it is shameful how happiness is valued above truth, since pursuing happiness above all else is hedonistic and egotistic, compared to pursuing truth.

They should be allowed to coexist.

[HXVZ-07031017]

Yes, it is. And it is shameful how happiness is valued above truth, since pursuing happiness above all else is hedonistic and egotistic, compared to pursuing truth.

They should be allowed to coexist.

True, they should, but truth should take precedence above happiness.

[The Free Joy State]

Yes, it is. And it is shameful how happiness is valued above truth, since pursuing happiness above all else is hedonistic and egotistic, compared to pursuing truth.

They should be allowed to coexist.

Then why place them in direct opposition, supposing people can only be happy if kept ignorant or, like tender blossoms exposed to too much light, will have their happiness wither if exposed to hard reality?

A person can be happy and accept the truth of this world.

I do believe, however, that all happiness is merely illusionary if a person is living in -- effectually -- a bubble: told they are happy and unable/not permitted to discover enough to discover if that's true.

[Geneviev]

Maybe they do know other religions and already chose this one. I didn't think about the hypothetical enough to establish that. In that case, we wouldn't have the right to interfere with their beliefs. Just like, if I decided that I only like one meal, no one should force me to eat anything else.

That wasn't the hypothetical presented to you. You'd only been offered that one meal (which, for the record, means you can't be getting the nutrients you need). How do you know if you like others? How can you know if you're happy?

If your hypothetical person knows of other religions, where would the harm be in discussing their existence with them? The proposition they must never be discussed in case the person starts to doubt their own beliefs suggests they cannot have been heard of before, and -- therefore -- that they cannot have had the opportunity to judge for themselves if they truly believe or are happy in those beliefs.

Unless you think capable, competent, adult people should be treated in the way you may talk to a four year old who said their hamster jumped over the house: "Did they, sweetie? That's nice"?

But to do that, to perpetually infantilise... that doesn't show respect. Not for the person, or for their beliefs.

BTW: You have a duty to tell the people who haven't heard of COVID, too. You know where they are. If you do, others do. And not everyone is responsible (there have even been cases of people deliberately spitting on others since the virus began). You have a duty to warn them. Will it make them less happy, certainly. Will it make them take precautions that may save them, one can only hope.

As long as I don't know the others, I am happy with the one. And when I know the others, I will be happier, in that case. People could judge in that situation that it's okay to do something different.

It wouldn't be a problem to discuss other religions with that person, but forcing them to give up their belief in their religion because it's not true would be the wrong thing to do. You don't have to hide things from anyone as long as their beliefs are respected. Respecting their beliefs doesn't have to mean treating them like children.

In the OP, I did add that people should be told about covid.

[Neanderthaland]

As I said, I don't wander into funerals yelling about the non-existence of the soul. Or rip the beards off of mall Santas.

But if the subject comes up, I'm not going to shy away from stating my thoughts because I assume that they're fragile to handle the truth. That's demeaning to me, and insulting to them.


They're functionally identical. The fact that you have a prior emotional commitment to one is the only reason you don't see that.

Now I don't know how you expect me to take away someone's "right to [their] religion." I'm quite certain I didn't advocate for that. And unless I've developed mind control abilities, I don't see how I can make them believe anything. And, indeed, religious people tend to be pretty resistant to argument. Almost by definition.

So if they choose not to believe after talking to me. They choose it. I didn't force them.

But you want me not to even talk to them on the off chance they might choose "wrong." That's not giving them a choice. It's not fair to them, it's not respectful of them, it's not honest, isn't not dignified. You're treating them like a child whose virgin ears must be protected from the filth of the world. It's controlling. An it's exactly why cult leaders make their followers cut contact to anyone who questions them.

You're not assuming that people are too fragile to handle the truth if you just let them believe something they already chose to believe.

Again: I can't make anyone believe anything. And if their beliefs are so fragile that they can't even withstand me stating that I disagree, then they probably didn't believe very strongly. Or never thought about it at all.

Respecting their own wishes to believe something that makes them happy and isn't harming anyone isn't insulting or demeaning, it is respect.

"Respecting" their assumed wishes. That you've decided for them. Now if somebody tells me that they don't want to talk about something, I'll drop the subject. I'm a polite enough person. But you're acting as though - by merely existing honestly - I'm assaulting these people. That the mere mention of another point of view will destroy their sanity.

You're acting exactly like those bigots who think that by merely seeing two men kiss it will make their kid gay, or something.

You can make people believe something without mind control because no one is resistant to argument. So you can definitely force your beliefs on people who want to believe in their religion and have the right to.

So just so I'm clear: your argument, is that my argument, is SO GOOD, that literally everyone will have no choice but to accept the truth of it. And because of that, I shouldn't make it?

They already made their choice and it should be respected. I'm not saying that they might choose wrong, I only want their choice to be respected in this case because it makes them happy.

Or maybe they've never been seriously exposed to any alternatives? Maybe they already question their beliefs, but just put on a pretense to appease family members (or their congregation?) And will be happier knowing that they're not alone?

Or maybe their faith, having been tested, will be strengthened? Maybe they will come to a new understanding of their religion that, for instance, meshes better with science?

You're acting like the only possibility of an honest discussion with someone is TOTAL MISSERY FOREVER. And it's just not. You don't want them to learn or grow. It's infantilizing.

And it's not even close to being like what cult leaders do.

It is literally a thing cult leaders do.

[Neanderthaland]

"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master." - Pravin Lal

[Geneviev]

They should be allowed to coexist.

True, they should, but truth should take precedence above happiness.

Sometimes, yes, it should. But there are definitely cases where people shouldn't be forced to sacrifice their happiness.

They should be allowed to coexist.

Then why place them in direct opposition, supposing people can only be happy if kept ignorant or, like tender blossoms exposed to too much light, will have their happiness wither if exposed to hard reality?

A person can be happy and accept the truth of this world.

I do believe, however, that all happiness is merely illusionary if a person is living in -- effectually -- a bubble: told they are happy and unable/not permitted to discover enough to discover if that's true.

That only happens in certain situations, when the truth is objectively painful. Otherwise, truth is as important or more important.

If someone has to be told that they're happy, it isn't real, but it is if they really feel that way.

[HXVZ-07031017]

True, they should, but truth should take precedence above happiness.

Sometimes, yes, it should. But there are definitely cases where people shouldn't be forced to sacrifice their happiness.

Then why place them in direct opposition, supposing people can only be happy if kept ignorant or, like tender blossoms exposed to too much light, will have their happiness wither if exposed to hard reality?

A person can be happy and accept the truth of this world.

I do believe, however, that all happiness is merely illusionary if a person is living in -- effectually -- a bubble: told they are happy and unable/not permitted to discover enough to discover if that's true.

That only happens in certain situations, when the truth is objectively painful. Otherwise, truth is as important or more important.

If someone has to be told that they're happy, it isn't real, but it is if they really feel that way.

> Sometimes, yes, it should. But there are definitely cases where people shouldn't be forced to sacrifice their happiness.

What cases? Almost never, or never at all!

[The Free Joy State]

That wasn't the hypothetical presented to you. You'd only been offered that one meal (which, for the record, means you can't be getting the nutrients you need). How do you know if you like others? How can you know if you're happy?

If your hypothetical person knows of other religions, where would the harm be in discussing their existence with them? The proposition they must never be discussed in case the person starts to doubt their own beliefs suggests they cannot have been heard of before, and -- therefore -- that they cannot have had the opportunity to judge for themselves if they truly believe or are happy in those beliefs.

Unless you think capable, competent, adult people should be treated in the way you may talk to a four year old who said their hamster jumped over the house: "Did they, sweetie? That's nice"?

But to do that, to perpetually infantilise... that doesn't show respect. Not for the person, or for their beliefs.

BTW: You have a duty to tell the people who haven't heard of COVID, too. You know where they are. If you do, others do. And not everyone is responsible (there have even been cases of people deliberately spitting on others since the virus began). You have a duty to warn them. Will it make them less happy, certainly. Will it make them take precautions that may save them, one can only hope.

As long as I don't know the others, I am happy with the one. And when I know the others, I will be happier, in that case. People could judge in that situation that it's okay to do something different.

This is what I mean when I ask "Is it real happiness, or just not knowing the alternatives".

It wouldn't be a problem to discuss other religions with that person, but forcing them to give up their belief in their religion because it's not true would be the wrong thing to do.

I agree that force is wrong, but I never mentioned force. Talking to people about a different perspective, different opinions, and where science and some more hardline beliefs contradict does not mean force. It merely holds up a mirror. It's up to the individual what they see inside.

You don't have to hide things from anyone as long as their beliefs are respected. Respecting their beliefs doesn't have to mean treating them like children.

If you can talk to people about other options and ideas, then, no that doesn't mean treating them like children.

If people are asked not to question or debate any belief that anyone holds, even in a respectful way, I would have to disagree.

In the OP, I did add that people should be told about covid.

Fair enough.

[Geneviev]

You're not assuming that people are too fragile to handle the truth if you just let them believe something they already chose to believe.

Again: I can't make anyone believe anything. And if their beliefs are so fragile that they can't even withstand me stating that I disagree, then they probably didn't believe very strongly. Or never thought about it at all.

Respecting their own wishes to believe something that makes them happy and isn't harming anyone isn't insulting or demeaning, it is respect.

"Respecting" their assumed wishes. That you've decided for them. Now if somebody tells me that they don't want to talk about something, I'll drop the subject. I'm a polite enough person. But you're acting as though - by merely existing honestly - I'm assaulting these people. That the mere mention of another point of view will destroy their sanity.

You're acting exactly like those bigots who think that by merely seeing two men kiss it will make their kid gay, or something.

You can make people believe something without mind control because no one is resistant to argument. So you can definitely force your beliefs on people who want to believe in their religion and have the right to.

So just so I'm clear: your argument, is that my argument, is SO GOOD, that literally everyone will have no choice but to accept the truth of it. And because of that, I shouldn't make it?

They already made their choice and it should be respected. I'm not saying that they might choose wrong, I only want their choice to be respected in this case because it makes them happy.

Or maybe they've never been seriously exposed to any alternatives? Maybe they already question their beliefs, but just put on a pretense to appease family members (or their congregation?) And will be happier knowing that they're not alone?

Or maybe their faith, having been tested, will be strengthened? Maybe they will come to a new understanding of their religion that, for instance, meshes better with science?

You're acting like the only possibility of an honest discussion with someone is TOTAL MISSERY FOREVER. And it's just not. You don't want them to learn or grow. It's infantilizing.

And it's not even close to being like what cult leaders do.

It is literally a thing cult leaders do.

I mainly decided their wishes for them because they're a hypothetical person I invented who believe in a hypothetical false religion that makes people happy and moral. I think it's okay to assume in that case.

Mentioning another point of view isn't going to ruin a person's life, but forcing them to abandon a belief they hold might in this case. So no, it has nothing to do with anyone being turned gay because there is a difference between seeing something and being forced to believe something.

Yes, that's about right. Your argument could persuade this person who is happier with their religion.

Those are possibilities, but they're not necessarily likely and the person is already happy. Honest discussion isn't going to cause unhappiness unless it removes the source of a person's happiness, and that is what would happen in this case. They can learn and grow without losing their beliefs.

Cult leaders try to control people. Almost everyone, not only cult leaders, want people to be happy.

[Geneviev]

Sometimes, yes, it should. But there are definitely cases where people shouldn't be forced to sacrifice their happiness.


That only happens in certain situations, when the truth is objectively painful. Otherwise, truth is as important or more important.

If someone has to be told that they're happy, it isn't real, but it is if they really feel that way.

> Sometimes, yes, it should. But there are definitely cases where people shouldn't be forced to sacrifice their happiness.

What cases? Almost never, or never at all!

Maybe almost never, but not never. It is a rare situation.

As long as I don't know the others, I am happy with the one. And when I know the others, I will be happier, in that case. People could judge in that situation that it's okay to do something different.

This is what I mean when I ask "Is it real happiness, or just not knowing the alternatives".

It wouldn't be a problem to discuss other religions with that person, but forcing them to give up their belief in their religion because it's not true would be the wrong thing to do.

I agree that force is wrong, but I never mentioned force. Talking to people about a different perspective, different opinions, and where science and some more hardline beliefs contradict does not mean force. It merely holds up a mirror. It's up to the individual what they see inside.

You don't have to hide things from anyone as long as their beliefs are respected. Respecting their beliefs doesn't have to mean treating them like children.

If you can talk to people about other options and ideas, then, no that doesn't mean treating them like children.

If people are asked not to question or debate any belief that anyone holds, even in a respectful way, I would have to disagree.

In the OP, I did add that people should be told about covid.

Fair enough.

Just discussing something with people isn't force, but trying to push a belief on them would be. And that is wrong if they didn't want it. If they don't mind, as in the case of someone posting on NSG, for example, then it wouldn't be force.

[Heloin]

I'm always right and if I increase my alcohol consumption I could be always happy. I see no possible negatives from this train of thought.

[Neanderthaland]

Again: I can't make anyone believe anything. And if their beliefs are so fragile that they can't even withstand me stating that I disagree, then they probably didn't believe very strongly. Or never thought about it at all.


"Respecting" their assumed wishes. That you've decided for them. Now if somebody tells me that they don't want to talk about something, I'll drop the subject. I'm a polite enough person. But you're acting as though - by merely existing honestly - I'm assaulting these people. That the mere mention of another point of view will destroy their sanity.

You're acting exactly like those bigots who think that by merely seeing two men kiss it will make their kid gay, or something.


So just so I'm clear: your argument, is that my argument, is SO GOOD, that literally everyone will have no choice but to accept the truth of it. And because of that, I shouldn't make it?


Or maybe they've never been seriously exposed to any alternatives? Maybe they already question their beliefs, but just put on a pretense to appease family members (or their congregation?) And will be happier knowing that they're not alone?

Or maybe their faith, having been tested, will be strengthened? Maybe they will come to a new understanding of their religion that, for instance, meshes better with science?

You're acting like the only possibility of an honest discussion with someone is TOTAL MISSERY FOREVER. And it's just not. You don't want them to learn or grow. It's infantilizing.


It is literally a thing cult leaders do.

I mainly decided their wishes for them because they're a hypothetical person I invented who believe in a hypothetical false religion that makes people happy and moral. I think it's okay to assume in that case.

But that's absolutely useless as a hypothetical, because in real life we never know a person's wishes ahead of time. Unless I'm supposed to be psychic, or something.

So your hypothetical will never apply to a real situation. And I won't entertain it. We're dealing with the real world where you don't magically know things ahead of time.

Mentioning another point of view isn't going to ruin a person's life, but forcing them to abandon a belief they hold might in this case. So no, it has nothing to do with anyone being turned gay because there is a difference between seeing something and being forced to believe something.

I reiterate that you can't actually force people to believe things. If you could, Flat Earther's would not exist.

Your presumption that mere exposure to certain ideas will instantly convert an unsuspecting person sounds exactly like the "turned gay" thing.

And, in both cases, there's nothing actually wrong with that outcome. It's okay to be gay, or an atheist, or even both! Some people will give you a hard time for it. Others (you) will pretend to be nice, but will act like your life must be very sad, in a condescending and judgmental way. "Oh you poor thing..."

Yes, that's about right. Your argument could persuade this person who is happier with their religion.

I just want to stop for a moment of silence at the absurdity of an argument being "too good to use."








Okay, now that I'm done silently chuckling: It could also not persuade them. Or strengthen their faith. Or they could find that, having left religion behind, they're even happier then they were before. You want them to be happy, but you don't want them to learn, or grow, or change. You want to stifle them. And it's not good for them, and it's not nice of you.

Those are possibilities, but they're not necessarily likely and the person is already happy. Honest discussion isn't going to cause unhappiness unless it removes the source of a person's happiness, and that is what would happen in this case. They can learn and grow without losing their beliefs.

Mate, they're going to run up against these ideas eventually. Unless you want them to live in a carefully controlled bubble for the rest of their lives?

And, frankly, it's insulting of you to assume that they won't be able to handle it. You're not respecting them with that assumption, you're treating them condescendingly.

Cult leaders try to control people. Almost everyone, not only cult leaders, want people to be happy.

Just to be clear, this is in response to me saying:

it's exactly why cult leaders make their followers cut contact to anyone who questions them.

Cult leaders don't want you talking to anyone who might make you question the cult's beliefs. They will say it's for your own good, and happiness, just like you are saying. When I say you sound like one of them. It's because YOU DO SOUND LIKE ONE OF THEM.

[Sundiata]

Happy, some things aren't meant for us to know.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The truth is that most of the people around me are scumbags, and my last girlfriend was just leeching off me because she thought "you American so you so must be rich," which surprise surprise I'm not. I know the truth and there's no comfort in it.

[SatoSere]

The truth is that most of the people around me are scumbags, and my last girlfriend was just leeching off me because she thought "you American so you so must be rich," which surprise surprise I'm not. I know the truth and there's no comfort in it.

Suffering while knowing the truth is still better than blissful ignorance. I despise those who are happy yet is ignorant of the truth - those people definitely CANNOT be my friends.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The truth is that most of the people around me are scumbags, and my last girlfriend was just leeching off me because she thought "you American so you so must be rich," which surprise surprise I'm not. I know the truth and there's no comfort in it.

Suffering while knowing the truth is still better than blissful ignorance. I despise those who are happy yet is ignorant of the truth - those people definitely CANNOT be my friends.

My dad for example. He still thinks people are inherently good and told me "you're too cynical for a young man."

[Ethel mermania]

The truth is that most of the people around me are scumbags, and my last girlfriend was just leeching off me because she thought "you American so you so must be rich," which surprise surprise I'm not. I know the truth and there's no comfort in it.

Suffering while knowing the truth is still better than blissful ignorance. I despise those who are happy yet is ignorant of the truth - those people definitely CANNOT be my friends.

why?
Not the friends part, I don't care about that.

[SatoSere]

Suffering while knowing the truth is still better than blissful ignorance. I despise those who are happy yet is ignorant of the truth - those people definitely CANNOT be my friends.

My dad for example. He still thinks people are inherently good and told me "you're too cynical for a young man."

TBH I was pretty cynical starting from age 12 onwards, you joined the cynicism train late mate. To quote Charles de Gaulle, "France has no allies, only interests". The same can be held true of people, as the universe more-or-less works like a fractal.

Suffering while knowing the truth is still better than blissful ignorance. I despise those who are happy yet is ignorant of the truth - those people definitely CANNOT be my friends.

why?
Not the friends part, I don't care about that.

Since that is the status quo for me as of now.

[Punished UMN]

But is it 'happiness' or just 'ignorance of the alternatives'? Your person in the OP, with their religion; who is to say they would not be happier having heard of and discovered another way to seek religion, or no religion at all? Certainly not you or I. That is the one reality they know. They cannot judge, they cannot choose if they are happy, or if they have just not heard of other options.

Say you have only ever eaten one meal your whole life. It's not a bad meal. You like it well enough. You don't know there are others. You consider yourself happy. Would it not be better, for your mind and your body, to be offered a whole palate of different options? And, if you were, might you not realise you weren't happy at all -- you just didn't know what you were missing?

Maybe they do know other religions and already chose this one. I didn't think about the hypothetical enough to establish that. In that case, we wouldn't have the right to interfere with their beliefs. Just like, if I decided that I only like one meal, no one should force me to eat anything else.

Happiness is worthless compared to the truth, though.

Is it really?

As I said, happiness based on false premises isn't true happiness, and that is one reason that simple ethical hedonism does a poor job of distinguishing between the two.

You're using a muddled hypothetical here about personal beliefs, but what about a situation where the false happiness is predicated on something that would ruin someone's life? Let's say John is happily married to Emma, and they have 3 children together, they have been married for 30 years. Let's say one day you are drinking with Emma on a girls' vacation and, while drunk, she admits something that shocks you: John is not the father of their children, she had them by another man she'd been having an affair with before she and John were even married. John finding this out would devastate him, he would find out he'd been living a lie for most of his life, but does that really justify not telling him the truth? I would think most of us would want to find out the truth even if it would be devastating to us emotionally. Let's take it a step further: the movie The Matrix, how about, where you're unknowingly plugged into a computer simulation while being used as food by sentient computers. You'd probably be happier in the simulation never finding out that you're a glorified battery, but is that any way to live your life?

Truth is important because it allows us to make our own decisions about how we want to live our lives, without it, we're hapless victims of circumstance, and robbing people of that on the presumption that you can make that decision more that they can is infantilizing.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm always right and if I increase my alcohol consumption I could be always happy. I see no possible negatives from this train of thought.

win - win

[Ethel mermania]

My dad for example. He still thinks people are inherently good and told me "you're too cynical for a young man."

TBH I was pretty cynical starting from age 12 onwards, you joined the cynicism train late mate. To quote Charles de Gaulle, "France has no allies, only interests". The same can be held true of people, as the universe more-or-less works like a fractal.

why?
Not the friends part, I don't care about that.

Since that is the status quo for me as of now.

What is status quo for you today may be very different in a week, hanging your hat on such a movable pin seems dicy. In general people who prefer to suffer rather than be happy are masochists.