Report The Validity Of Subjectivism in Questions about Objectivism Posted March 17, 2006 Hal: Ok. The problem with the typical addict example is that it always posed by people who do not do drugs and simply assume that the addict must be happy about what he is doing, just because he does so. The idea is: if someone does something, I assume that he is happy doing so. Unfortunately that's not true. People are always doing things that they immediately regret, or regret the next day, or the next year. Politically, I would not question the addict's decision -- he can shoot drugs as long as it does not threaten me. However, that does not mean it is practical for him to do so. The bottom line is that there could be rational reasons to take a drug and there could be irrational reasons. Have you met a real addict who's happy with his addiction? or is this just a theoretical idea? My argument already assumes that the person is happy. I am not arguing whether all drug addicts are always happy or not. I used a drug addict as an example specifically because he is not usually happy, indeed is usually only happy while using the drug. You are correct that if someone is happy, then there is no meaningful standpoint from which to condemn him.Then you would be going against Objectivism as well, since Ayn Rand declared that only rational happiness is not condemnable. A drug user who enjoys taking coke or mdma when he goes out clubbing may lead a happy life, but this is neither an example of addiction nor hedonism.Actually, that is exactly an example of hedonism. There is no valid inference from "x is enjoyable as part of an otherwise fufilling life" to "x will make someone happy if they pursue it as a primary goal".What would you describe a "fulfilling life" to consist of? Misery?