> I don't think the words mean the same thing. I'm not going to give you some sterile dictionary definition, but to me pleasure is largely a "surface" psychological response to some sort of physical act, while happiness is a "deeper" psychological response.
>
> E.g. eating an entire chocolate cake would give me pleasure, but the resultant weight gain would make me unhappy. The two are linked, I think, and often unhappiness can result from too little pleasure (though I'm not sure the opposite is true -- I don't think happiness is likely to follow from a lot of pleasure). You might be correct in saying that pleasure and happiness are really the same psychological phenomenon, but for the purpose of this discussion I'd like to have a distinction, even if it's only semantical.
>

Ok I see what you're saying, this is simply a different choice of words. Ive always thought of pleasure and happiness as the same thing, and used "immediate happiness" and "long-term/eternal happiness".

> Happiness is more important to me than pleasure. My goal then becomes to maximize them both, but to realize that if a decision forces me to choose between the two I should go with happiness. This is a pretty groundwork for an argument to behave ethically. Consider being in a romantic relationship with somebody. Having an affair may provide tremendous pleasure, but if the relationship makes you happy it makes sense not to sacrifice that happiness for pleasure. The same goes for treating people ethically in non-romantic relationships: you may be able to screw over others (figuratively) in business for material advantage, but the unhappiness caused by lack of friendships is more painful than the pleasure gained from more money. There are other considerations as well, most notably the fact that humans have consciences (be they biological or social constructions), and behaving in a way that we believe to be immoral tends to make us deeply unhappy.
>

As I grow spiritually, I find that the line between the two types of happiness becomes more indistinct. Immoral actions have become less pleasurable(immediately satisfying), making it much easier to handle decisions like that.

> Happiness comes differently for different people, and achieving it is difficult. For myself, I seem to be happiest when I have good relationships with other people and when I am engaged in intellectual activities that I feel have some sort of value. It's a broad definition, but I don't know that anyone is interested in what makes Stephen Keller specifically happy... :P
>

Oh Im sure people are interested, look at the appreciation of Howard's posts...

> > I submit that everyone lives to gain pleasure in some form. That is a universal subjective purpose (are there others?), no matter what the objective purpose is, or if it exists.
>
> This is an interesting claim. Can you provide evidence for it? Not saying I disagree -- I'm really uncertain about it -- but I'd like to hear why whitehelm believes this.
>
> Stephen

Well, first of all, remember that by pleasure I mean some type of happiness in general. I cant really think of any evidence for it other than for everyone that reads it to look at their own life choices and see the reasons behind them. This was just something Im throwing out to see if anyone can counter it(we may be having a problem of different word usage again, maybe "postulate" or "propose" would be better).

-whitehelm