It seems to me that the liberal seeks an ever asymptotic approach to ultimate truth, which they know at some point might come to a clearer understanding. And it is that hope to know the ultimate truth that will cause them to overturn any established order, and so they question any duty not on the same path. The assumption of course is that the truth will liberate one from suffering. A dangerous assumption.

One who seeks an ultimate truth in the world must inevitably re-order the world to accomodate that truth, and defines suffering as the distance from the possibility of perfection. They cannot accept that those without possession of the truth and the means to approach it are not self-deluded.

But how can anyone who lived without knowing what we know possibly have been happy? I think there is a conceit that life of the mind delivers happiness divorced from the act of discovery. I think people misjudge the size of the soul and of the mind and presume that one can satisfy one or the other by living completely in them. But the mind and the soul are hungry and become jaded and self-serving. Happiness is found in balance. Balance requires discipline. To live entirely in the mind, or the soul, or the body are conceits.

More so, if we assume causation, is this still putting the cart before the horse? Are people conservative because they are happy, or liberal because they are unhappy? Would deliberately changing political views have no impact were it the symptom and not the disease?

This article provides interesting ammunition for future research, but I see no valid and well-supported conclusions.

I suggest that Arthur Brooks survey people living under a liberal government and see what results the data gives, before making extrapolations about religion and optimism.

I should think that anyone, whether conservative or liberal, will be happiest living in the society that most reflects and supports their own values.

I urge you to read, if you have the time, the first chapter, and particularly the fourth section, of Derek Parfit’s Climbing the Mountain.

The idea I (and others, I think) are trying to get at is that ultimate ends don’t come from reason alone. They can be hardwired into your nervous system (like the end of avoiding pain) or you can acquire them through experience, but somewhere along the chain of goals and subgoals, you have to reach a point where you don’t have a reason for something. No goal has the status of a tautology–as far as I can tell, anyway.

I’m trying to decide if Voltaire’s comment is perfect or ironic given his pseudonym.

frelkins, I don’t understand what your point is.

b. “X group is happier” is a much different observation than “adopting X characteristic will make Y group happier.” The data on lottery winners and spinal injury accident victims seem to argue against the idea that changes can make people happier – though of course adopting a new political outlook is an internal change, whereas spinal injury/lottery winning are external changes. I think this is a weaker objection than (a).