In Robert Heinlein’s novel “Farnham’s Freehold”, the protagonists accidentally end up in a very technologically advanced feudal society that depends on a drug called “Happiness” to control things and keep social classes rigidly separated. The hypothesis of this question: the drug is a pleasant tasting drink you take daily. It has no known negative side effects. It rapidly induces a feeling of deep contentment, peace, clarity of mind and general satisfaction with your life. You will not become physically dependent on it. You don’t have to pay anything to get it. A small, unchanging dose must be taken every day to maintain this effect, but you don’t control its distribution. It is distributed by the ruling class of your society, but no one is coerced to take it, as they are psychologically dependent on it. After many centuries of Happiness distribution, no one has shown desensitization or needed a higher dose. The protagonists in the book rejected their doses, escaped briefly and were recaptured. Would you take Happiness? Why or why not?
Probably.
First, I think we should consider the question from two angles. First is if I’d take it if I was a character in the story, and second is whether I’d take it as the person I am now.
If I grew up in the story, yes, I think I would almost certainly take it, because I’d start taking it in my youth, and if I grew up in those circumstances those would be my social norms. Just like how most of us grow up accepting things like sweatshop labor, factory farmed meat, and produce picked by exploited migrants. Really, without some system to challenge these things, not doing them is almost inconceivable.
Now, if I were suddenly in that world? It would depend on what my options are. I’d like to advocate for political equality. I’m assuming that the drug demotivates me from advocating for such things. If so, I think I’d resist taking it for some time to get a sense for how things are, then I’d try it for context, and make an informed decision.