> Satisfaction from seeing "fruits of your labor" improve the condition of everyone is also a source of happiness. I don't think it's worse than happiness from having a good family life.
Yet you seemed to want to draw a distinction between happiness and a lasting impact. Though the distinction was perhaps just with the family/local impact.
> I also don't think there's some kind of "altruism" that isn't ultimately just another way of getting happiness - maybe a more intellectual one, out of the feeling of doing something one considers morally good.
Right, but a family-related happiness is less because it's just a result of chemicals (oxycotine?) that are related to survival, a sort of failure mode? You said yourself that it is less fundamental. What is fundamental? And why is your derivation of happiness higher than those who go by the supposed more base instincts of focusing on their family? Because the hormonal causes are harder to pin down and analyse? So what? Something more complex and harder to describe is better?
If you feel happy, I think the distinction of why is unimportant.
Yet you seemed to want to draw a distinction between happiness and a lasting impact. Though the distinction was perhaps just with the family/local impact.
> I also don't think there's some kind of "altruism" that isn't ultimately just another way of getting happiness - maybe a more intellectual one, out of the feeling of doing something one considers morally good.
Right, but a family-related happiness is less because it's just a result of chemicals (oxycotine?) that are related to survival, a sort of failure mode? You said yourself that it is less fundamental. What is fundamental? And why is your derivation of happiness higher than those who go by the supposed more base instincts of focusing on their family? Because the hormonal causes are harder to pin down and analyse? So what? Something more complex and harder to describe is better?
If you feel happy, I think the distinction of why is unimportant.