Recently there has been a push by the scientistic ilk to attempt to give a description on behalf of the scientific community of what "the good life" amounts to. My problem with such movements is that it leaves open the possibility and possibly the necessity of eliminating a particular population (ie. the disabled community) from living a good life. Typically scientistic thinkers begin with the idea that everything philosophical and metaphysical can be reduced into a scientific testable hypothesis. Presumably the reduction of the "good life" would be reduced into something that can be tested, some examples might include: being in pleasure, being mentally stable, being physically well. Presumably scientists can add to the discussion of what all of these are, being physically well amounts to being not having some physical disability or being healthy, being mentally stable amounts to not haveing some neurological condition, and being in pleasure amounts to being comfortable with oneself etc. But notice how this approach methodologically extends to an oppression of the disabled community, basically "the good life" amounts to not being disabled. But clearly the reduction of "the good life" to a scientific hypothesis is the wrong approach. While a scientific approach to these philosophical questions can add to the description of a good life, or maybe inform us so that we might make a particular decision to guide our lives; this approach cannot tell us what the good life amounts to. Anyways those are my thoughts today.
aspen:
isn't that completely subjective?
existentialsex4:
Good question Aspen. I'm actually thinking about this question a lot, and am thinking of writing my honors thesis on the topic of the good life. Some would say that it is subjective. That is to say intuitively we can say things like "you can't tell me how to live my life, and I can't tell you how to live your life". On the other hand, we do seem to make some objective judgements about people living their lives. For example suppose I'm just the worst singer ever, yet I choose a lifepath of trying to become the next american idol and I go to auditions every year, even though I get horrifically denied all the time. Intuitively we say things like "these people are choosing the wrong life, they might have talents in other areas, but this lifepath is wrong for them". I haven't really made up my mind as to whether this is a subjective question or an objective one. But even if this question is a subjective one, the scientistic approach is the wrong one anyways. I'm trying to argue even if this question is an objective one, the scientistic approach is the wrong one. But I think if I do write my honors thesis on this topic, I'm probably going to have to address your question. So much thanks for the comment! 