Hedonism: HSL's April 2013 Intellectual Discussion

<p>Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hedonism as “the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life.”</p>

<p>But how much of an influence does hedonism have on society? It’s no secret that there are those who vigorously adopt hedonism as their life’s goal; from provincial partiers to larger-than-life celebrities, some people seem to only care about fulfilling their own pleasure. However, these examples are only the most obvious hedonists. Is everyone a hedonist at heart? Although the valedictorian who slaves for A’s every day seems to be eschewing all sorts of worldly pleasures, perhaps his or her motives are ultimately hedonistic–to attain a prestigious degree that will lead to a high-paying job and all the happiness that comes with it. </p>

<p>This intriguing thought distills to a simple question: if every action one takes is, in fact, voluntary, then doesn’t that action fulfill that person’s desires, making everything hedonistic?</p>

<p>Secondly, what are the moral ramifications of hedonism? Is it immoral to simply desire pleasure at all times? What about happiness (because pleasure and happiness are two distinct entities)? </p>

<p>Finally, on a personal level, do you subscribe to a philosophy of hedonism? Many would say that their ultimate goal is to be happy–does that count as hedonistic?</p>

<p>Feel free to add any and all thoughts related to hedonism below. This is meant to be an open discussion, and the only thing I ask is that you keep the conversation civil and intelligent. If there’s enough interest for regular intellectual discussions on HSL, I’ll add new such threads monthly.</p>

<p>You have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but I’d say that once your efforts to reach that pleasure/happiness have deliberately negative consequences on other people’s lives, it’s out of line.</p>

<p>Propinquity, would, then, a person who perpetually seeks pleasure and doesn’t contribute anything to society be “in line”? As long as there aren’t any immediately negative effects on others, is it all right for someone to also have no immediately positive effects on others? If everyone were similarly neutral, wouldn’t society fail miserably?</p>

<p>Well, by simply participating in the economy, (I assume you would still need money to pursue your hedonistic interests) you’d inadvertedly produce positive effects nonetheless by stimulating the economy.
I can honestly hardly think of anyone I know personally who functions for the benefit of others. Those sort of people do exist, but the opposite seems like the majority, with unintentional positive effects resulting from their actions.
Or their actions, while seemingly positive, always seem to have an ulterior motive.</p>

<p>Everyone is a hedonist, in the general sense. That’s how the brain works, by rewarding certain thoughts, behaviors, and experiences with positive feelings.</p>

<p>As long as the incentives are arranged correctly, as long as the right things feel right, then the world works fine. When they don’t, though, as when drugs are taken or people are made remote from the world’s problems or the way to follow incentives are simply unclear, then dysfunction arises.</p>

<p>“I can honestly hardly think of anyone I know personally who functions for the benefit of others.”</p>

<p>And if they did, it would be because doing so made them happy in some way.
I don’t see how it’s even really possible to live for any other reason than bringing about your own happiness. Every voluntary action people take is done to bring about certain sense experiences for themselves. </p>

<p>“Is it immoral to simply desire pleasure at all times?”</p>

<p>Depends on whether the actions someone derives pleasure from are, in themselves, immoral. Which (to some extent) depends on the person and the context.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with this, but I’d like to see some dissenting opinions. Is there not one person in the history of the world who has lived altruistically?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So a life of self-indulgence is intrinsically okay, so long as it doesn’t include immoral actions? What about the omission of good–what if someone had the potential to cure Cystic Fibrosis but instead just sat around and did enjoyable things all day? If you take a group of one hundred sworn hedonists, wouldn’t it be likely that at least some good is being neglected as a result of their lifestyle?</p>

<p>Jesus, yo.</p>

<p>#tokenfemaleintellectreppin’</p>

<p>I think we gain pleasure from doing good, so altruism is inherently impossible for humans. I think the only “real altruist” would have to be someone without the capacity to feel pleasure – disabled receptors or something but still have the intellectual capacity to do good, <em>consciously</em>. </p>

<p>I think all three major ethics systems I know a little bit about would call hedonism immoral. My knowledge of Kant is pretty sparse (no time for reading) and I think he’s quite unnecessarily rigid on some points but he thinks that the only good thing is a good will and that good will is worthless unless its done out of respect for the “moral law”, i.e. done because its ones duty. </p>

<p>His categorical imperative states that </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you go by that definition, hedonism might have some positive consequences but on the whole, if everyone was a hedonist - if it was a universal moral law that everyone followed, the world would be done for.</p>

<p>consequentialism – I am only really familiar with utilitarianism. Hedonism is not going to align with the goals of the greatest good for the greatest number of people because hedonism by definition is seeking of pleasure which can lead to disruptive activities. Hence, its immoral. </p>

<p>Aristotle’s philosophy I think is mostly about balance so there’s no way, hedonism would qualify. </p>

<p>

This statement can be interpreted as an endorsement of
happiness- but a long living and permanent happiness; a happiness that is a
product of both virtue and an achievement of ideals that include health,
friends, wealth and knowledge.</p>

<p>In some situations, I think failing to help someone can be just as immoral as directly hurting them. I don’t think failing to devote every second of your life to helping others is immoral, but I don’t really have any justification for that other than that it’s the way most people act most of the time, and sitting around deliberating about which course of action we should take to bring about the maximum amount of help to others (so as to avoid acting immorally) would waste time.</p>

<p>Offshoot: I think the state should oppose hedonism. </p>

<p>I think in a sense, you could call everyone hedonistic. Most people try to conform to ideals that society has prescribed to us in order to be happy. In that sense, I would consider myself a hedonist because I want “success”. Alternatively, one might argue that along with the pursuit of happiness, people pursue goals that do not bring them pleasure – they do it because it’s the right thing to do. But then again, does doing the right thing bring someone pleasure? It might. I think the only actions that are NOT hedonistic under this definition would be actions that are morally correct but bring no pleasure. Actions that are immoral, I think are always pleasure seeking – otherwise, there is no rationale behind them - you are not acting out of respect for duty, so what are you acting for? But again, you could say that society rewards people for making these so- called “tough choices”. I don’t know… </p>

<p>Disclaimer: I personally have a very pessimistic view of man and myself and think we’re inherently selfish 95% of the time. Sorry if I make no sense right now; I’m really tired and ought to be working on an assignment!</p>

<p>well, this looks fascinating. I think I’ll jump in later when I’m not feeling as tired</p>

<p>@stressedouttt: I’m glad you think so!</p>

<p>@ecouter: I’m glad you brought up Kant’s categorical imperative. I was just about to address that, and you did so nicely. It is interesting that hedonism, at least in its extreme form, is not feasible for an entire population. It’s inherently selfish. So do you think it’s moral to seek a blatantly hedonist lifestyle?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If devoting every second of your life to helping others is moral and devoting no seconds of your life to helping others is not, then where should the line be drawn? At what point does one’s lifestyle qualify as morally sound?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How do you define that? Loads of people live and do for the sake of others. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Someone who is a real expert at the happiness game knows that moral action is more rewarding than self-indulgence in both the short and the long term.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Just because pleasure’s associated with a consequence doesn’t mean that consequence was willed for the sake of the pleasure.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s false, because everyone already is a hedonist. You just have this limited understanding of what hedonism means. Why would a hedonist engage in behaviors that make the world “done for”? How does that maximize pleasure in any way whatsoever?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Same thing. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What part of the definition of hedonism devalues long-term pleasure?</p>

<p>Oh good, dissent.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Living for the sake of others does not qualify as truly altruistic, at least under its strictest definition. I think absolute altruism, or selflessness, is impossible. Every charitable action is accompanied by a feeling of satisfaction that is undeniably pleasurable to the charity-giver. Which brings me to this point:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But doesn’t it? Consider this generalized “selfless” action:</p>

<p>Person A is in pain, hungry, or otherwise wanting of something.
Person B sees the pain, hunger, or other want and resolves to eradicate that discomfort. Person B wants to do this, so B is achieving a personal desire. When one achieves something, chemicals in the brain provide that person with a pleasurable sensation. Hence, Person B is still acting in his interest in helping Person A because, almost cyclically, he wanted to help Person A in the first place. Person B knows that the action he/she is taking will achieve some goal and thus provide him/her with a pleasurable sensation. This self-gratifying process is the basis of my reasoning that altruism in its purest sense does not exist.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think ecouter is “false” here; he just forgot to specify. While we all seem to be in agreement that everyone is a hedonist in some form, ecouter was saying that if everyone were a blatant hedonist–that is, one who only seeks pleasure at all times (and thus does not contribute to society)–human society would likely collapse. And I agree with that. Exercising hedonism in its moderate, everyday form, however, is still feasible for society, so I agree with you there.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This question brings up an important definition issue. Merriam-Webster included both pleasure and happiness in its definition, yet these concepts are not one and the same. If one sought only pleasure at all times (the more immediate course) through drugs, sex, etc., he/she would miss out on long-term bonds and experiences that contribute to lasting happiness. Are there different kinds of hedonism, then? A more base form that is only pleasure-seeking and a more noble form in which one seeks long-term happiness?</p>

<p>Thanks, Stud, for taking me away from my bio homework. Onto the questions (I’m responding mainly to Stud’s questions and not other points made in the thread up to this point):</p>

<ol>
<li>If one wants to be rather general in their definition of hedonism and other branches of ethics, it could be stated that all of our actions are hedonistic at a simple level. We all have wants and desires and fulfilling them to satiate ourselves is token hedonism. When delving deeper into other branches of ethics though, things get a tad murky. </li>
</ol>

<p>Take Utilitarianism, for example – per Merriam-Webster, Utilitarianism is “a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences.” Essentially, Utilitarianism is a doctrine that says that people should aim for the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain that ensures greatest happiness for the greatest numbers. It can be said that Utilitarianism does fill Hedonism’s basic requirement of providing pleasure but it’s also more complicated than that – unlike Hedonism, Utilitarianism places certain pleasures higher than others per the benefit it will provide everyone and in what way/context. For example, let’s say I went to the local supermarket and buying and eating a piece of lemon meringue would provide me pleasure. There are two different lemon meringues on sale, a more expensive one from Big Brand and a relatively cheaper one from Generic Store Brand. Previous customers and a supermarket employee assure me that both taste the same and the price difference is due to the different brands peddling the meringues. If I was a plain ol’ Hedonist, it wouldn’t make a difference to me which brand I bought and how much I paid for the meringue. As long as I got the meringue I would be happy. On the other hand, if I was a Utilitarian I would look at the difference in prices v. the pleasure it provides (assuming the pleasure I get from each meringue is the same) – X Amount of Pleasure/2Y dollars v. X Amount of Pleasure/Y Dollars – and see that I get more pleasure for my money by buying the generic brand’s meringue. I gauged how much pleasure v. pain I would get (eating meringue v. the amount I pay for the meringue) and saw that Generic Store Brand had the largest possible amount of pleasure over pain in this scenario. You might say “Gram, <em>everyone</em> would pick the cheaper meringue! That makes the most sense!” To that I say: are you sure everyone is essentially a hedonist, then?</p>

<p>From this, you can see two major things: 1. Utilitarianism almost builds on top of Hedonism, still maintaining pleasure key but providing more specificity to the rather simplistic concept of Hedonism. 2. In most basic scenarios, Utilitarianism seems to be the actual train of thought people take instead of Hedonism, so everything isn’t essentially Hedonism even though the basic tenets of Hedonism might be found in our actions.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Hedonism and nothing but could lead to rash decisions, effectively hindering “the greater good” for society. Like ecouter points out, “the world would be done for.” The meringue example sort of explains why, albeit on a more basic level – people not taking into account pleasure v. the ramifications of how they’re seeking said pleasure/the amount of pain they’re preventing in their actions could lead to some ill outcomes. If people didn’t take that into account irl, empires and republics would’ve crumbled much earlier than they did (among other things).</p></li>
<li><p>At some level, sure. I consider myself a hedonistic utilitarian – I aim for pleasure but I try to seek it through efficient means (and many Utilitarians are essentially just like that).</p></li>
</ol>

<p>This is probably repetitive because people are posting really fast while I’m writing, but eh I’ll post anyway. </p>

<p>“Loads of people live and do for the sake of others.”</p>

<p>But only because it makes them happy in one way or another. </p>

<p>“It is interesting that hedonism, at least in its extreme form, is not feasible for an entire population.”</p>

<p>It’s infeasible because, if it were implemented, the world would suck and everybody would end up being unhappy, right?
Hedonism in its “extreme”/stereotyped form (which I suppose would involve acting impulsively and unthinkingly?) isn’t really the best or most effective form of hedonism, because it doesn’t actually succeed in bringing about a lot of long-term happiness.
A certain type of hedonism is clearly feasible for entire societies, because that’s how we all live right now. Every decision anyone makes is intended to bring them happiness in some way. If someone gives up some pleasure in favor of pain or a lesser pleasure, it’s because they think that decision will bring about a better result for them in the long run.
For example, say I’m a crazy person and someone tells me “everyone is a hedonist” and I try to prove them wrong by always taking the course of action that will cause me the most suffering. I’m still being hedonistic because the idea of proving them wrong makes me happy. </p>

<p>“If devoting every second of your life to helping others is moral and devoting no seconds of your life to helping others is not, then where should the line be drawn? At what point does one’s lifestyle qualify as morally sound?”</p>

<p>It depends on under what conditions failing to help someone is immoral. For a lot of people, this is based on distance (how far away are the suffering people and do I personally know them?), but I think there’s something wrong with the idea that failing to help people far away from you is less wrong than failing to help those close to you. </p>

<p>(Also, which is more important: the amount of time spent helping others, or the amount of help provided regardless of the amount of time? If Person A is the richest and thus donates more money, or is the most skilled at helping people in other ways, is s/he more moral than others - or is it only motives that count?)</p>

<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE: Remember not to discuss religion.</p>

<p>Thanks @ Studious for responding to Philo for me. Just FYI, I am a girl :)</p>

<p>Kant’s categorical imperative says that if this maxim is followed universally, will everything still be okay? If everyone was blatantly hedonistic – the world would go to pieces in days.</p>

<p>I would argue now, people are hedonistic and the world is not in a really great place. There’s an incredible amount of suffering by innocent people, if that makes sense. You guys should check out “the Grand Inquisitor” chapter from the Brothers Karamazov by Dostovetsky – he explains it way better than I ever could.</p>

<p>I will reply to everyone later, I’m in a serious time crunch right now…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me show you why this argument just doesn’t cut it — by replacing “pleasurable to the charity-giver” with “pleasurable to the charity receiver”.</p>

<p>“Every charitable action is also accompanied by some other person’s feeling of satisfaction that is undeniably pleasurable to the charity-reciever.”</p>

<p>This statement is just as true as the one you made. And it also has nothing to do with whether an action is done for the sake of pleasure or not. It’s completely tangential. It’s true that everything I do is accompanied with a loss of energy, but that doesn’t mean the goal of all of my actions is to use up my energy. No one cares what an action is accompanied by in this issue — no one is debating whether pleasure/pain occurs with actions or not. They’re arguing whether this is the sole motive of all action.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Knowledge that consequence will arise =/= intent for the sake of achieving this consequence</p>

<p>It’s pretty straightforward. :S</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, you can’t use a word and act like it means something else. Hedonists thing happiness/pleasure are the ultimate good. There is no difference between a blatant hedonist and the unaware hedonist besides the blatant hedonist is self-aware. We all “seek pleasure at all times”, period. </p>

<p>What you are trying to say is that ecouter was referring to the strawman hedonist — the idiot who takes a very poor approach to the pursuit of pleasure because he doesn’t understand how to achieve it. But ecouter’s labeling of the idiot hedonist as representative of hedonism in general means that he does not know what hedonism is, which was my point.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Happiness is always around when pleasure is around, and pleasure is always around when happiness is around. Please tell me how the two are distinct.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Neither position is more “noble”. There is no such thing as nobility. The latter is simply less stupid. Both are hedonists, and they aren’t typologically distinct from another. The former just doesn’t pursue pleasure over the long-term. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, utilitarianism appreciates the happiness of others. Other-happiness is only instrumentally important to the hedonist; utilitarians value the happiness of others for its own sake. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you call utilitarianism a more sophisticated hedonism, then it’s just a subset of hedonism, and everyone who is utilitarian is a hedonist. Again, you’re just missing what it means to be a hedonist.</p>