To be right or to be happy?

[Ethel mermania]

The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.

A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.

Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?

In this case a doctor lying is a big problem, because it breaks the trust. You do not lie.

And remove the patients will to live, at least the medic can feel good about themselves

[Neanderthaland]

To lie to someone to preserve their happiness is to infantilize them. It is to reject their dignity, reason, and responsibility, because you think you know better than they do. You may think you're doing them a favor. You're actually belittling them. It shows contempt for them. I won't say there's never any reason to do this, but just know that it's a very disrespectful thing to do. And if they hate you for it when they find out, they have every right to.


To lie to yourself to preserve your happiness, is to infantilize yourself. It is to reject all claim to dignity, reason, and responsibility, and hold yourself in contempt. There is a reason why cults attempt to break you down before they indoctrinate you. To lie to yourself is to be broken.

If you just don't tell someone that what they believe is wrong, I don't think that's lying to them and it would be a different situation.

I don't go out of my way to interrogate strangers about their beliefs, or barge into funerals to tell everyone about how "souls are a lie, and your loved one is lost forever."

But if I am asked, or the topic comes up in discussion, I will say so when I think someone is wrong. This is treating them like an adult. Like a mature, responsible person, who is capable of considering their beliefs. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of being reasonable. To do otherwise would be to insult them.

And if it turns out that they're right, and I'm wrong, I want to know that too. And I want them to tell me if they think so. I don't want to be wrong.

In the case of the religious person, you would destroy any chance of them being happy if you were to tell them that it's not real, and I don't think that is the right thing to do. It would be worse than just letting them believe something that's wrong.

The biggest lie they're telling themselves is that religion is the only "chance of them being happy." And you're feeding into that lie.

As for the cults point, everyone lies to themselves about something and it makes them happy. It's not unique to people in cults.

If you know some way in which I am lying to myself, I want you to tell me about it, because I would like to correct it.

[Neanderthaland]

To lie to someone to preserve their happiness is to infantilize them. It is to reject their dignity, reason, and responsibility, because you think you know better than they do. You may think you're doing them a favor. You're actually belittling them. It shows contempt for them. I won't say there's never any reason to do this, but just know that it's a very disrespectful thing to do. And if they hate you for it when they find out, they have every right to.


To lie to yourself to preserve your happiness, is to infantilize yourself. It is to reject all claim to dignity, reason, and responsibility, and hold yourself in contempt. There is a reason why cults attempt to break you down before they indoctrinate you. To lie to yourself is to be broken.

The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.

A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.

Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?

Medical ethics actually would demand you tell them the truth. I'm also not sure what you mean by "a safer time in terms of the recovery." Presumably you think telling them now would cause a heart-attack or something? If so, I think it would actually be medically preferable to cause that when they're already hooked up to all the heartrate monitors.

I can do better: Do you tell a person with alzheimer's that their loved one is dead for the umteenth time, knowing that they'll just forget and ask again in 10 minutes?

In either case, by lying to the person you are effectively infantilizing them. You can maybe justify this by saying that "you're not the one who infantilized them, it's their condition that has done so." Particularly in the case of alzheimer's, they can't be dealt with like a reasonable adult, because they can't be a reasonable adult. The disease has taken that ability away from them. And so you may have to do things which might be humiliating to them, and might ordinarily seem disrespectful to them.

This is frankly horrible, and is one of the more awful things about dealing with people with mental disabilities. Because, if you're a normally moral human being, you don't like treating others in this way. Which, sadly, is part of the reason why the mentally ill are often ignored.

[Ethel mermania]

The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.

A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.

Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?

Medical ethics actually would demand you tell them the truth. I'm also not sure what you mean by "a safer time in terms of the recovery." Presumably you think telling them now would cause a heart-attack or something? If so, I think it would actually be medically preferable to cause that when they're already hooked up to all the heartrate monitors.

I can do better: Do you tell a person with alzheimer's that their loved one is dead for the umteenth time, knowing that they'll just forget and ask again in 10 minutes?

In either case, by lying to the person you are effectively infantilizing them. You can maybe justify this by saying that "you're not the one who infantilized them, it's their condition that has done so." Particularly in the case of alzheimer's, they can't be dealt with like a reasonable adult, because they can't be a reasonable adult. The disease has taken that ability away from them. And so you may have to do things which might be humiliating to them, and might ordinarily seem disrespectful to them.

This is frankly horrible, and is one of the more awful things about dealing with people with mental disabilities. Because, if you're a normally moral human being, you don't like treating others in this way. Which, sadly, is part of the reason why the mentally ill are often ignored.

Sandra day O'Connors husband had alzhemimers and after he had to go to a home he met a woman there and started a relationship with her, completely forgetting he was married. I saw her talking about it, she said he was happy, and she was ok with it.

In the example I gave I do disagree with you.. i would wait to tell the person, let them get stronger in their recovery. i don't want them in shock about the death of their spouse while their life is still touch and go. They will find out soon enough, better when they are stronger, and preferably with a loved one to help deal with the additional pain.

[Krasny-Volny]

Look, a lot of folks who are concerned with being right about everything all the time are depressed and miserable people...they’re not the happier for being so convinced of the rightness of their knowledge.

In the same vein that people with knowledge of classified and top secret stuff are not any happier for their knowledge, even if others would kill to possess what they have.

Too much knowledge about anything is too much, and being able to say you were right counts for so little.

[Major-Tom]

What if I'm usually neither?

[Neanderthaland]

Medical ethics actually would demand you tell them the truth. I'm also not sure what you mean by "a safer time in terms of the recovery." Presumably you think telling them now would cause a heart-attack or something? If so, I think it would actually be medically preferable to cause that when they're already hooked up to all the heartrate monitors.

I can do better: Do you tell a person with alzheimer's that their loved one is dead for the umteenth time, knowing that they'll just forget and ask again in 10 minutes?

In either case, by lying to the person you are effectively infantilizing them. You can maybe justify this by saying that "you're not the one who infantilized them, it's their condition that has done so." Particularly in the case of alzheimer's, they can't be dealt with like a reasonable adult, because they can't be a reasonable adult. The disease has taken that ability away from them. And so you may have to do things which might be humiliating to them, and might ordinarily seem disrespectful to them.

This is frankly horrible, and is one of the more awful things about dealing with people with mental disabilities. Because, if you're a normally moral human being, you don't like treating others in this way. Which, sadly, is part of the reason why the mentally ill are often ignored.

Sandra day O'Connors husband had alzhemimers and after he had to go to a home he met a woman there and started a relationship with her, completely forgetting he was married. I saw her talking about it, she said he was happy, and she was ok with it.

Okay.

In the example I gave I do disagree with you.. i would wait to tell the person, let them get stronger in their recovery. i don't want them in shock about the death of their spouse while their life is still touch and go. They will find out soon enough, better when they are stronger, and preferably with a loved one to help deal with the additional pain.

This fails on two levels:
1) I don't know if it's actually medically accurate that they would be in more danger now, and you need to wait until they're "stronger in their recovery." It may seem intuitively likely, but you could just as easily argue that giving their depleted blood pressure and adrenal response a chance to build up again could put them at more risk. In any case, I haven't known any doctors to do this, and I'm pretty sure you can get in a lot of trouble for lying about stuff like this.

However, take it to be true, then:
2) You're not lying to make them happy. You're lying to make them alive. Which is a very different hypothetical.

[Neanderthaland]

What if I'm usually neither?

Run for president?

[Ethel mermania]

Sandra day O'Connors husband had alzhemimers and after he had to go to a home he met a woman there and started a relationship with her, completely forgetting he was married. I saw her talking about it, she said he was happy, and she was ok with it.

Okay.

In the example I gave I do disagree with you.. i would wait to tell the person, let them get stronger in their recovery. i don't want them in shock about the death of their spouse while their life is still touch and go. They will find out soon enough, better when they are stronger, and preferably with a loved one to help deal with the additional pain.

This fails on two levels:
1) I don't know if it's actually medically accurate that they would be in more danger now, and you need to wait until they're "stronger in their recovery." It may seem intuitively likely, but you could just as easily argue that giving their depleted blood pressure and adrenal response a chance to build up again could put them at more risk. In any case, I haven't known any doctors to do this, and I'm pretty sure you can get in a lot of trouble for lying about stuff like this.

However, take it to be true, then:
2) You're not lying to make them happy. You're lying to make them alive. Which is a very different hypothetical.

In the Sandra day O'Connor example there is no point in hammering them that they are married and shouldn't have a gf.

2nd point, agreed I am trying to save a life. And in that scenario I think it's permissible to lie.

[US-SSR]

Being right makes me happy.

[Neanderthaland]

Okay.


This fails on two levels:
1) I don't know if it's actually medically accurate that they would be in more danger now, and you need to wait until they're "stronger in their recovery." It may seem intuitively likely, but you could just as easily argue that giving their depleted blood pressure and adrenal response a chance to build up again could put them at more risk. In any case, I haven't known any doctors to do this, and I'm pretty sure you can get in a lot of trouble for lying about stuff like this.

However, take it to be true, then:
2) You're not lying to make them happy. You're lying to make them alive. Which is a very different hypothetical.

In the Sandra day O'Connor example there is no point in hammering them that they are married and shouldn't have a gf.

2nd point, agreed I am trying to save a life

Okay, but I already sort of conceded the point when it came to alzheimer's. That it's okay not to treat them like a rational, capable adult to the extent that they are not and cannot be one.

Speaking from some experience here: it's a very sad and uncomfortable thing when you have to start treating people like this.

[Ethel mermania]

In the Sandra day O'Connor example there is no point in hammering them that they are married and shouldn't have a gf.

2nd point, agreed I am trying to save a life

Okay, but I already sort of conceded the point when it came to alzheimer's. That it's okay not to treat them like a rational, capable adult to the extent that they are not and cannot be one.

Speaking from some experience here: it's a very sad and uncomfortable thing when you have to start treating people like this.

I will say the same, and I am sorry to hear it.

[Neanderthaland]

Okay, but I already sort of conceded the point when it came to alzheimer's. That it's okay not to treat them like a rational, capable adult to the extent that they are not and cannot be one.

Speaking from some experience here: it's a very sad and uncomfortable thing when you have to start treating people like this.

I will say the same, and I am sorry to hear it.

Thank you. Me too.

[Major-Tom]

What if I'm usually neither?

Run for president?

Good idea.

[Geneviev]

If you just don't tell someone that what they believe is wrong, I don't think that's lying to them and it would be a different situation.

I don't go out of my way to interrogate strangers about their beliefs, or barge into funerals to tell everyone about how "souls are a lie, and your loved one is lost forever."

But if I am asked, or the topic comes up in discussion, I will say so when I think someone is wrong. This is treating them like an adult. Like a mature, responsible person, who is capable of considering their beliefs. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of being reasonable. To do otherwise would be to insult them.

And if it turns out that they're right, and I'm wrong, I want to know that too. And I want them to tell me if they think so. I don't want to be wrong.

In the case of the religious person, you would destroy any chance of them being happy if you were to tell them that it's not real, and I don't think that is the right thing to do. It would be worse than just letting them believe something that's wrong.

The biggest lie they're telling themselves is that religion is the only "chance of them being happy." And you're feeding into that lie.

As for the cults point, everyone lies to themselves about something and it makes them happy. It's not unique to people in cults.

If you know some way in which I am lying to myself, I want you to tell me about it, because I would like to correct it.

Treating someone with respect could just mean respecting their right to be happy if they're not hurting themselves or anyone else. It's definitely not an insult to anyone when you try to preserve their happiness sometimes. It's just respecting their wishes, just like telling you that something you believe is wrong would be.

It can just be true that people rely on religion to be happy, too. And if it doesn't cause them to harm anyone, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Neanderthaland]

I don't go out of my way to interrogate strangers about their beliefs, or barge into funerals to tell everyone about how "souls are a lie, and your loved one is lost forever."

But if I am asked, or the topic comes up in discussion, I will say so when I think someone is wrong. This is treating them like an adult. Like a mature, responsible person, who is capable of considering their beliefs. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of being reasonable. To do otherwise would be to insult them.

And if it turns out that they're right, and I'm wrong, I want to know that too. And I want them to tell me if they think so. I don't want to be wrong.

The biggest lie they're telling themselves is that religion is the only "chance of them being happy." And you're feeding into that lie.


If you know some way in which I am lying to myself, I want you to tell me about it, because I would like to correct it.

Treating someone with respect could just mean respecting their right to be happy if they're not hurting themselves or anyone else. It's definitely not an insult to anyone when you try to preserve their happiness sometimes. It's just respecting their wishes, just like telling you that something you believe is wrong would be.

If someone has told you, directly, to lie to them to make them happy, then it would be respecting their wishes. But if they haven't, you aren't.

You're making assumptions on their behalf, and you're not allowing them the opportunity to challenge those assumptions. This is not respectful. This is coddling.

It can just be true that people rely on religion to be happy, too. And if it doesn't cause them to harm anyone, there's nothing wrong with that.

The implicit assumption here is that religion is wrong, but it's okay if it makes you happy. What you're doing is the equivalent of insisting that Adults really do need to believe in Santa Claus, because "how could we have Christmas otherwise?"

It's offensive to me on many levels. It's dishonest. It's dismissive of the value of integrity. But probably most damningly, and what I keep returning to, it's insulting to those adults to be talked to like that. As if they can't possibly be expected to handle the truth.

[Geneviev]

Treating someone with respect could just mean respecting their right to be happy if they're not hurting themselves or anyone else. It's definitely not an insult to anyone when you try to preserve their happiness sometimes. It's just respecting their wishes, just like telling you that something you believe is wrong would be.

If someone has told you, directly, to lie to them to make them happy, then it would be respecting their wishes. But if they haven't, you aren't.

You're making assumptions on their behalf, and you're not allowing them the opportunity to challenge those assumptions. This is not respectful. This is coddling.

It can just be true that people rely on religion to be happy, too. And if it doesn't cause them to harm anyone, there's nothing wrong with that.

The implicit assumption here is that religion is wrong, but it's okay if it makes you happy. What you're doing is the equivalent of insisting that Adults really do need to believe in Santa Claus, because "how could we have Christmas otherwise?"

It's offensive to me on many levels. It's dishonest. It's dismissive of the value of integrity. But probably most damningly, and what I keep returning to, it's insulting to those adults to be talked to like that. As if they can't possibly be expected to handle the truth.

You have to assume either way. I think it's better to assume that you should not challenge someone's happiness unless they made it clear that they don't mind, like posting on NSG or something like that. That would be respecting their right to be happy.

Christmas is better without Santa Claus, but life isn't better without religion, so they're not equivalent. And those adults who already chose a religion that clearly does make them happy have the right to that religion.

[Neanderthaland]

If someone has told you, directly, to lie to them to make them happy, then it would be respecting their wishes. But if they haven't, you aren't.

You're making assumptions on their behalf, and you're not allowing them the opportunity to challenge those assumptions. This is not respectful. This is coddling.


The implicit assumption here is that religion is wrong, but it's okay if it makes you happy. What you're doing is the equivalent of insisting that Adults really do need to believe in Santa Claus, because "how could we have Christmas otherwise?"

It's offensive to me on many levels. It's dishonest. It's dismissive of the value of integrity. But probably most damningly, and what I keep returning to, it's insulting to those adults to be talked to like that. As if they can't possibly be expected to handle the truth.

You have to assume either way. I think it's better to assume that you should not challenge someone's happiness unless they made it clear that they don't mind, like posting on NSG or something like that. That would be respecting their right to be happy.

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.

Christmas is better without Santa Claus, but life isn't better without religion, so they're not equivalent. And those adults who already chose a religion that clearly does make them happy have the right to that religion.

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.

[Punished UMN]

If someone has told you, directly, to lie to them to make them happy, then it would be respecting their wishes. But if they haven't, you aren't.

You're making assumptions on their behalf, and you're not allowing them the opportunity to challenge those assumptions. This is not respectful. This is coddling.


The implicit assumption here is that religion is wrong, but it's okay if it makes you happy. What you're doing is the equivalent of insisting that Adults really do need to believe in Santa Claus, because "how could we have Christmas otherwise?"

It's offensive to me on many levels. It's dishonest. It's dismissive of the value of integrity. But probably most damningly, and what I keep returning to, it's insulting to those adults to be talked to like that. As if they can't possibly be expected to handle the truth.

You have to assume either way. I think it's better to assume that you should not challenge someone's happiness unless they made it clear that they don't mind, like posting on NSG or something like that. That would be respecting their right to be happy.

Christmas is better without Santa Claus, but life isn't better without religion, so they're not equivalent. And those adults who already chose a religion that clearly does make them happy have the right to that religion.

You're missing the point by making the assumption that religion is necessarily false happiness. Imagine if you applied the logic you're applying to more recognizable, mundane scenarios, like allowing a friend going on believing his wife's children are his, as an example.

[Knica Eas]

The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.

A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.

Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?

Medical ethics actually would demand you tell them the truth. I'm also not sure what you mean by "a safer time in terms of the recovery." Presumably you think telling them now would cause a heart-attack or something? If so, I think it would actually be medically preferable to cause that when they're already hooked up to all the heartrate monitors.

I can do better: Do you tell a person with alzheimer's that their loved one is dead for the umteenth time, knowing that they'll just forget and ask again in 10 minutes?

In either case, by lying to the person you are effectively infantilizing them. You can maybe justify this by saying that "you're not the one who infantilized them, it's their condition that has done so." Particularly in the case of alzheimer's, they can't be dealt with like a reasonable adult, because they can't be a reasonable adult. The disease has taken that ability away from them. And so you may have to do things which might be humiliating to them, and might ordinarily seem disrespectful to them.

This is frankly horrible, and is one of the more awful things about dealing with people with mental disabilities. Because, if you're a normally moral human being, you don't like treating others in this way. Which, sadly, is part of the reason why the mentally ill are often ignored.

They matter if the person asks.

This is untrue from a health care perspective.

The primary imperative is to minimise harm; all else are secondary.

It is true that the wishes of the patient must be taken into account. But the reason for doing so is because going against the wishes of the patients causes harm. It is not an independent imperative to respond truthfully, to disclose fully, and, in exceptional circumstances, even to respect the expressed wishes of the patient; these are important insofar as they are usually significant factors in harm reduction, but they are far from the only factors.

If the care provider has compelling evidence that disclosure of information causes measurable and predictable harm, it is almost universally recommended to not disclose information - even in a place like America.

The reason why 'America' is important is that the degree of harm caused by the failure to disclose truth differs for different demographics. Americans have a tendency to feel 'infantilised' and cause measurable harm to self and others as a result of this feeling. As such, exhibiting behaviour that causes this feeling is less recommended in an American health care setting. (edited)

[Geneviev]

You have to assume either way. I think it's better to assume that you should not challenge someone's happiness unless they made it clear that they don't mind, like posting on NSG or something like that. That would be respecting their right to be happy.

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.

Christmas is better without Santa Claus, but life isn't better without religion, so they're not equivalent. And those adults who already chose a religion that clearly does make them happy have the right to that religion.

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

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. 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.

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

[The Free Joy State]

My answer:

“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.'

'In fact,' said Mustapha Mond, 'you're claiming the right to be unhappy.'

'All right then,' said the Savage defiantly, 'I'm claiming the right to be unhappy.'”

For me, a mindlessly happy, cossetted, unquestioning existence is not living. It is not a life where a person is respected enough to be allowed access to the hard questions, to the information that enables them able to judge what is right and wrong, true and false, for themselves.

I would rather be respected enough to be allowed to question the walls of my existence.

Okay, but I already sort of conceded the point when it came to alzheimer's. That it's okay not to treat them like a rational, capable adult to the extent that they are not and cannot be one.

Speaking from some experience here: it's a very sad and uncomfortable thing when you have to start treating people like this.

I will say the same, and I am sorry to hear it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Neanderthaland and Ethel. That's the horrible thing. It strips away someone's rationality and forces you to behave differently toward them. It's a horrible and dehumanising condition.

I will say, though, that that does reinforce my opinion that it is dehumanising to treat someone as if they can't understand serious topics or bad news and to try and keep them in a perpetually happy hinterland. Knowing that it's only been done because someone is losing their capacities doesn't make it less dehumanising. It just makes it even sadder.

[Geneviev]

My answer:

“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.'

'In fact,' said Mustapha Mond, 'you're claiming the right to be unhappy.'

'All right then,' said the Savage defiantly, 'I'm claiming the right to be unhappy.'”

For me, a mindlessly happy, cossetted, unquestioning existence is not living. It is not a life where a person is respected enough to be allowed access to the hard questions, to the information that enables them able to judge what is right and wrong, true and false, for themselves.

I would rather be respected enough to be allowed to question the walls of my existence.

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.

[The Free Joy State]

My answer:


For me, a mindlessly happy, cossetted, unquestioning existence is not living. It is not a life where a person is respected enough to be allowed access to the hard questions, to the information that enables them able to judge what is right and wrong, true and false, for themselves.

I would rather be respected enough to be allowed to question the walls of my existence.

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?

[HXVZ-07031017]

My answer:


For me, a mindlessly happy, cossetted, unquestioning existence is not living. It is not a life where a person is respected enough to be allowed access to the hard questions, to the information that enables them able to judge what is right and wrong, true and false, for themselves.

I would rather be respected enough to be allowed to question the walls of my existence.

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.