Nietzschean happiness pre-empted

Interesting discussions yesterday!*

Caroline asked if the last one was typical of what we talk about in Bioethics? Yes, frequently. Our reading list: Bioethics: The Basics (Campbell-”...the word ‘bioethics’ just means the ethics of life…”); The Case Against Perfection (Sandel-“When science moves faster than moral understanding, as it does today, men and women struggle to articulate their unease…”); On Immunity (Biss-“If we imagine the action of a vaccine not just in terms of how it affects a single body, but also in terms of how it affects the collective body of a community, it is fair to think of vaccination as a kind of banking of immunity"); Being Mortal (Gawande-We’ve been wrong about what our job is in medicine. We think it is to ensure health and survival. But really it is to enable well-being. And well-being is about the reasons one wishes to be alive.”)

So, we'll catch up with Nietzsche on Tuesday, and hear from Crystal, Jesse, and (I hope) Misty/Dilyse on Haybron's Pursuit of Unhappiness. That may push Camus to Thursday before (or do you prefer after?) the exam, but I'm still interested in your suggestions for what else we might wish to do on exam day as well. (Looks like we'll be finishing midterm reports then, too.)

*My dawn post this morning:

We never even got to Nietzschean happiness yesterday - did he? - when, at a reporter's request, we flipped our usual process and did reports first. And that was the ballgame, so positively provocative were our reporters' questions. But it's ok, Nietzsche recurs.

I wonder: what would Nietzsche say, in reply to the questions that pre-empted him?

1. Are you interested in illusory happiness?
2. Can you be happy in an unhappy environment?
3. Would you allow or regulate genetic engineering intended to make people happier?

I suspect he'd evade the first question, with talk of masks, perspectives, and rhetorical shots at the very concept of "real" happiness as a pleasure-seeking convention of weakness.

To the second, he'd disingenuously boast of his own icy and superior state of flourishing amidst the warm-hearted herd.

To the third, he'd insist - perhaps rightly - that to truly enjoy and appreciate one's ascent and arrival at the peak, one must have endured the arduous climb. So, no to Happy designer-genes.

And what would Fritz have said about one of the more heated peripheral topics to arise in our free-flowing response to #3, on GMOs? "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger," maybe?

	TED Talks (@TEDTalks)
10/24/15, 7:06 AM We can now edit our DNA. But let's do it wisely: t.ted.com/jUtRCzU