Are Mormons Happier than Objectivists?
Will Wilkinson thinks so.
If he’s right, then why is this the case? And what philosophical implications (if any) would it have?
This is a topic I’ve touched on before, to some extent.
From Will’s post:
I’ve made this point a number of times, but apparently I’m not tired of making it, because I’m about to make it again. One of the tenets of Objectivism is that adherence to the principles of Objectivism is a necessary condition for true happiness and maximum longevity. I am completely confident that this is false. So I am also willing to bet that Mormons, for example, are on average both happier (measured according to any standard method) and longer lived than Objectivists.
Any takers? How much you wanna bet?
I’d have to put my money on the Mormons being happier.
Why would they be happier? This may sound crazy to people who know me — I’ve been an atheist since the tender age of eight — but I’m increasingly convinced that certain aspects of religious observance, despite their nonrational basis, have psychologically beneficial effects.
Meditation is my favorite example — not that Mormons put much emphasis on this. But don’t forget about social commitments, dietary guidelines, lifestyle restrictions, and even prayer.
Explaining why prayer might be beneficial will have to wait for another post. 
One common theme among these practices is that, used rightly, they militate against narcissism — a common cause of unhappiness, and something that can be quite prevalent among Objectivists, in my experience.
What philosophical implications would it have? This is a complex question, obviously.
To some extent, philosophy would remain unphased. Knowing that Mormons are happier than Objectivists would have little impact, for example, on the truth value of Objectivist metaphysics or epistemology.
But it would have tremendous implications for how we apply philosophy to our lives, and for psychology in general.
And if we learn that happiness is dependent on much more than rationality and the derivative Objectivist virtues, then this would have huge implications for ethics — particularly if we maintain happiness as our standard of value.
I look forward to hearing what others think.
If you had a dozen wives, you’d be much happier too!
Just kidding, of course. I know Kathy is enough woman to make a dozen men happy.
Yeah, polygamy was the first thing that popped into my mind, too. But somehow that didn’t make it into the final copy...
Only a very small minority of Mormans practice polygamy. I think there maybe something to prayer in the contentment it brings that maybe a better explanation.
Josh,
There are a number of reasons I think Objectivism is not a comprehensive solution for happiness. I’ll list a few below:
1. Objectivism stresses the study of philosophy. While philosophy is important, most individual people have much more to gain by perfecting a career and the nuts and bolts of dealing with external reality. This doesn’t invalidate Objectivism as a philosophy, it simply means it won’t solve our worldly problems and doesn’t substitute for thinking and individual achievement. All of these things are stressed in Rand’s artistic credo, but can be lost in the study of her philoophy. Mormonism has a strong career ethos that rivals Objectivism.
2. Most social skills and social interaction are learned in a completely different way than “rational thinking”. We have mirror neurons that mimic and emulate. Family structure and positive role models are important because they get at how we really learn social behavior. Nurturing families are a cornerstone of Mormonism. Interestingly, Rand also places a high value on heroes. We should choose our heroes carefully and have them in many different realms of life because this is how we really learn most interpersonal behavior.
3. Control of consciousness issues aren’t touched on in Objectivism at all. People have a whole set of neuropsychological inclinations that were framed by our evolutionary history and have nothing to do with a successful life in modern society. How we deal with these evolutionary appetites and inclinations has a lot to do with how happy we are. Religion is not just primitive philosophy, it is also a primitive psychological adaptation to stressful environments and the unknown.
I don’t think the above issues are a problem for Objectivism as a philosophy. However, they are a problem for Objectivism as a social phenomenon and movement. They also point up many problems for people who are drawn to Objectivism as a kind of personal validation. Many of the struggles depicted in Rand’s novels are not accompanied by workable coping mechanisms in the philosophy.
Jim
One of the bigger problems I’ve seen with many who call themselves Objectivists is that they have a litany of things they’re set against, but place little emphasis on what they’re for. This isn’t a problem with Objectivism itself, as Objectivism is a very positive philosophy. Rather, I think the problem is in the libertarian introduction many receive.
Libertarianism is generally a big tent party of “no!” If there are enough things you don’t want, you can usually find a home in popular libertarianism. This kind of negativism can be very corrosive.
I am a Mormon objectivist and find your question fascinating.
You may be interested to know that Joseph Smith taught the primacy of existence; reason over faith, etc.
Everything in Mormonism, including claims to God’s power/knowledge is rooted in existence or reality.
Mormonism teaches that God exists, has always existed, inside reality.