I guess all I’d have to say in partial defense of the new law is that there’s something more at stake than just which school which kids attend. Policies like the new law may cause religious and other curriculum-objecting parents to take new, more positive attitudes towards the public schools their kids attend. The school can then be a partner in education their children (however objectively suboptimally) instead of an agent of the state bent on “indoctrinating” their children against their will. Surely this aspect of the equation would be really difficult to investigate other than ethnographically. But it seems to me that parents modeling respect for the public schools to their children may at least sometimes be worth their kids missing even a key lesson.

If positive affect is important for happiness, then these drugs can increase happiness in low positive affect individuals. If positive affect is neither here nor there, then the drugs are a sham, or they’re peddling something other than happiness.

I(‘m not sure I believe this, but I’ll pose it for discussion.)

The cost of homeschooling and/or private school is considerable for the vast majority of people. Most people who object to some content in the public schools face a considerable barrier to exiting the system. Therefore, only in extreme cases of disagreement or the fairly well off will remove their students from the public school system due to curriculum. The current state of affairs, in this case, essentially coerces people who would otherwise object to this content to remain in public school. I’m quite certain you’ll find this coercion to be objectionable, but I think a pretty strong utilitarian argument could be made for ensuring that students are taught conventional science, to choose one example. It is my belief that not only are these students better off in a public school, but that the content these students and families would likely object to is of particular benefit to both the individuals and society. Whether this means healthy and safe sex practices or scientific method, I think there is good reason to coerce these students into experiencing this content.

Given this reality, I would rather not institute a law like NH on the grounds that you proposed. First, the number of students who will remain in the system rather than exit into homeschooling or private school is likely unsubstantial because of the high costs associated with those decisions. Second, I am substantially lowering the cost of objecting to specific content and therefore making it more likely that a broader group of students (extending beyond the current opt-out audience) will not be exposed to certain content. Believing that this specific content is quite valuable, I conclude the NH law is likely a net-negative.

Happiness itself is a misleading term because it is posited on a polarity–it isn’t sadness. Contentment is the opposite of discontent, but it doesn’t necessarily imply the “extreme positivity” connoted by the term happiness.

Hence, if I were to say Jim is a very content person, but I wouldn’t say he is necessarily happy–that utterance would make sense to you. If I said Jim isn’t a very positive person, but he is happy, somehow that makes less sense probably because of the polar nature of happiness.

This is not a bad position — it’s near Aristotle’s, and clearly defensible. But I want to take the harder line that, individual differences or not, if positive affect is an important component of happiness for humans, then the low positive affect people are missing out on something good and worth wanting, even if their lives are still going well on other dimensions of happiness (construed broadly).

Does that help at all?

I say this because it seemed your review indicated that this was a value-judgment on Seligman’s part, but I could just as easily see it as an input (effective or not) into happiness.

It is possible for someone to be happy, but for them not to be THRIVING. For example, someone who is poor may be happy in the sense that they have enough food, or a roof over their heads, but they certainly are not THRIVING.

A mentally retarded or challenged or whatever the hell the PC term is nowadays person might very well be HAPPY as a prostitute, but that does not at all mean that person is thriving.

What we ought to be doing for everyone is ensuring that each person has adequate chance to thrive. That means, in essence, having a basic quality of life that is not abysmal.