<p>CLARIFICATION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN FAST:</p>
<p>Hedonism is not defined as “emphasizing the pursuit of base pleasures with no concern for long-term pleasures nor the welfare of others”</p>
<p>Hedonism is the “defining of happiness/pleasure as the highest end of life.” Full stop.</p>
<p>Pay attention to the definition and not to the stereotypes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dude jumps onto a grenade to save his friends. Did this make him happier? Was there any hedonic calculation made, or was it just “Human beings. It’s my duty to save.” /jump?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Self-interest is not immoral; it is natural, and by acting for our own self-interests, we guide society. That’s how capitalism works: by the voluntary cooperation of individuals for mutually beneficial agreements. That’s what Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” effect is: that, by pursuing options beneficial to us, we create competition, enforcing efficiency and productivity. Self-interest is what drives our society. Ironically, by acting in self-interest, you are helping everyone else more than if you were deliberately generous.</p>
<p>Now, this begs the question: is self-interest equivalent to hedonism? I think to an extent it is, for our entire existence is predicated upon our own well being first. It, as Jeremy Bentham said, is in our benefit to pursue whatever has the most utility, or brings us the most pleasure. </p>
<p>Acting and living for ourselves is hedonistic, by this definition, but I don’t think that has a negative impact upon society. If we make the assumption, as most economists have, that people are rational beings, then all of our actions are based upon the self. All organization, whether it be cultural, economic, or social, is derived from self-interest.</p>
<p>If we assume that individuals act rationally and look for what provides the greatest utility (i.e. hedonism), then, this produces order. The first individual in a market will be able to raise prices, which will attract other producers until the competitive force creates efficiency, and causes market organization. People will have a reason to seek out information to increase efficiency in wages and prices in order to fulfill their own self-interest. Consumers choose what they desire, and producers have to meet this at a certain price: else they will fail. Companies will meet consumer demands because they want to succeed, while consumers want a certain product at a certain quality at a certain price, for their own self-interest. Self-interest drives this organization.</p>
<p>And from economics stems everything else. Status is derived from wealth, which is derived from economic success or self-interest, and people seek status. This creates a social hierarchy of the successful and the unsuccessful that is perpetual, which, over time, creates certain social norms. Once social norms are established, people follow social norms to gain status, which in turn fuels the creation of wealth, which perpetuates the hierarchy and causes more organization, all driven by self-interest.</p>
<p>As for me, I have no qualms: I do what brings me the most pleasure, at it’s most basic.</p>
<p>Thus, self-interest is natural, and acting in self-interest works for the greater good more than traditional altruism does.</p>
<p>Philovitist, I’d like to remind you that this is a discussion and not an argument. The purpose of this thread is not to prove that your opinion or argument is right but to explore hedonism. Please be respectful of others’ input; we wouldn’t want to scare anyone away. (And by respectful, I mean cutting down the "No"s and the "he doesn’t know what he’s talking about"s.) You can add contrasting input without disparaging others’ arguments. </p>
<p>Now, I’d love to respond in-depth, but school restarts tomorrow, and I have much AP Chem to do. I’ll respond when I can, but in the meantime, feel free (anyone, really) to discuss Philo’s points.</p>
<p>Yeah, but not exactly. Unregulated pursuit of self-interest leads to this thing called market failure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you googled the definition of discussion lately?</p>
<p>I can be respectful and cut down bad arguments at the same time. That, in fact, is key for discussions to make progress. :/</p>
<p>Philo, the implication that you’re a crusader for philosophical right and that your “good arguments” are cutting down the “bad arguments” is itself detrimental to progress. Imagine if you were sitting in a circle discussing something philosophical and someone started saying “No, you’re wrong” to everyone else’s points. You’d probably quickly resent that person. “I disagree because ____” is a simple courtesy that goes a long way.</p>
<p>@StudiousMaximus: I see no reason that argument should be quelled. The best way to determine the validity of one idea is to test it against another. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so?</p>
<p>But what if one’s hedonistic behaviour is a danger to themselves? </p>
<p>For example, so people like to get smashed and party and drink, which I guess isn’t so horrible every once in a while. But what about those celebrities/regular people who do that every week or maybe even every day? </p>
<p>Like Lindsay Lohan or Justin Bieber. </p>
<p>I feel like something should be considered hedonistic if it is a relatively safe activity you engage in do get pleasure from that isn’t causing harm to yourself or others. </p>
<p>And it all depends on what your idea of hedonism is. It wouldn’t be selfish to me to go out and go shopping every time I did well on a test. But it would be if I was using someone else’s money, or going into debt. </p>
<p>I believe we’re all hedonists at heart. Every single one of us gets pleasure from something or another.</p>
<p>@logicx24: Discussion contains elements of argumentation, of course, and I’m perfectly happy to see contrast and disagreement. I just meant that he should try to reduce his aggressive, somewhat haughty tone (that is characteristic of heated argumentation) and cut down on the absolute declarations (“Happiness is always around when pleasure is around,” “There is no such thing as nobility,” etc.). These are the kinds of things I see (and very much dislike) during Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debates (where the sole motive is to win–not to learn), and I’d prefer that they stay out of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Got it. “Be more polite to prevent resentment.” Sure, that’s reasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a lot of different ways. </p>
<p>One involves the ignorance of property rights, or the ability of an individual to own and exercise control over scarce resources. If these aren’t respected by everyone, then self-interested behavior will lead to the accrual of resources into the hands of those with more power, increasing their power while leaving the weak even weaker and without a course for ever becoming strong. This basically can be said about all things that we ordinarily call “rights”, and what makes political science so important (because this distribution of power between people is what defines the subject). To protect rights, self-interest must be controlled through a system of positive and negative incentives called the legal system that makes the infringement of rights undesirable to the self-interested person.</p>
<p>Then there are externalities, the impact of one person’s actions on an innocent bystander. One example of an externality is pollution - a perfect example of how working in your own interest can hurt others, since pollution can reduce your health. Self-interested companies would pump debris into our air and water supply without restraint if it weren’t for the legal system altering the incentives to make doing so undesirable. </p>
<p>Then there is the unequal distribution of market power, or the ability of a single economic actor to have a substantial influence on market prices. For example, if everyone in town needs water but there is only one well. The owner of the well gets to charge lots of money to use it since water is a necessity and there are no other well owners to compete for customers. Because of this set-up, the self-interested guy can basically extort customers for loads of money that could instead be used for economic development.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t really heated and I wasn’t really haughty. With all due respect, maybe you’re, er, easily threatened? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that’s just silly (oops, absolute declaration, there). There’s nothing about an absolute declaration that’s bad. Things believed absolutely should be asserted that way. :/</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assure you that my sole motive is to learn and that I believe that straightforward “heated” debate is the way to that. Ideas only develop when they go through a trial by fire. Otherwise they just hang around. I agree that there is a way to do this respectfully, but I disagree that a combative approach to the discussion of ideas is a bad one in any way. </p>
<p>In the end, what matters is that no one starts getting angry or resentful because of something so trivial as someone else’s attitude toward their ideas. As long as ad hominens are avoided and attention is focused on the content of each of our arguments, then there really is no way this thread can’t end productively at this point. :/</p>
<p>I’m not easily threatened; I’m just laying the ground rules. My comments were meant for everyone, not just you, Philo. As an example, though, I will briefly explain why most absolute declarations are silly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Take physical pleasure (which is relevant because physical pleasure is a chief goal of most hedonists). If one is being raped, he/she is receiving sexual stimulation that activates pleasure sensors in his/her brain. However, rape is inherently unwanted, so that person is unquestionably unhappy about his/her situation. Here is an instance where pleasure and happiness do not exist in simultaneity. Thus, happiness is not always around when pleasure is around. And that example is not some strange exception; one can stimulate himself/herself (creating pleasure) with drugs, food, television, what have you and still be unhappy. A pertinent example is “comfort food”; when an obese person indulges on food, he/she is receiving pleasure yet is also unhappy that he/she is eating poorly and/or is unhappy in general about being overweight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yes. That is what I assumed in saying “unregulated;” that rights would be respected. I meant that the government would not artificially interfere with market forces, thus creating a laissez-faire system. I should have clarified; I suppose all markets are regulated in this manner to a certain extent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The legal system still hasn’t effectively combated pollution, mainly because it is nigh on impossible to find a “true cost” for the effect an individual actor has upon pollution, due to all the secondary effects pollution can have. Governments have attempted to create taxes, following Arthur Pigou’s idea, but, taxes on pollution have to be individual in order to ensure each business pays fairly, and that larger contributors are taxed more, creating incentives for them to cut pollution. But I digress.</p>
<p>Yes, such external costs are a market failure because the results of these costs are not seen. These costs aren’t reflected in market prices because the actor doesn’t have to face the social costs of its actions. But we still can’t effectively combat these, even with regulation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, basically, a monopoly? </p>
<p>In your example, another person could see the higher returns, and make an investment to dig another well to capitalize on the profits. If he did not individually have enough money, he could ask each townsperson for a certain amount, and then use all of the money to create a well, distributing profits proportionally and competing against the monopolist. Profits would still remain high for both of these producers, attracting more competitors to enter until the price is driven to the margin price.</p>
<p>Monopolies cannot last as long as there are no barriers to entering the market, like initial expenses or governmental policies. As long as any firm has the ability to freely enter a market, a monopoly will be forced to remain efficient and keep prices low due to the fear of attracting competition.</p>
<p>There are markets, like phones for example, where the barriers to entry make monopolies more cost efficient. Due to the immense cost of creating a telephone network, other firms cannot enter and compete against a well established firm. However, if the telephone monopolist charges too much, he may make it profitable for a prospective competitor to enter, so, he has to ensure a certain degree of efficiency in his procedures to keep a viable market price.</p>
<p>@StudiousMaximus: I don’t see how you refuting one declaration makes all absolute declarations false. Inductive logic doesn’t work in that way.</p>
<p>Though I agree with your point: pleasure and happiness are separate things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not a demonstration of why most absolute statements are silly. It’s a demonstration that happiness and pleasure are different things.</p>
<p>Decent one, For sure. We need formal definitions of happiness and pleasure.</p>
<p>@both of you: Okay, here’s the underlying reason why they’re silly: they’re mostly not true. I could continue to provide examples (and that’s all that’s needed to refute an absolute–one strong counter-example) that refute a lot of the absolutes in this thread, but that would get tiresome. Absolutes are weak because they are so easily negated. So unless you back it up (and if you can, great), don’t use an absolute. What I was originally criticizing was a lack of argumentative basis, not necessarily the use of absolutes. But since these go hand-in-hand quite frequently, I pointed out the absolutes. Just try to back them up, that’s all.</p>
<p>Oh, and logic, I never said all absolute declarations are false. I said most are silly, and I hold to that. </p>
<p>And I’m glad we’re making progress. Happiness and pleasure are two different (though related) things.</p>
<p>EDIT: ecouter, apologies for mixing up your gender.</p>
<p>Hedonism is okay because of Adam Smith’s gold ol’ Invisible Hand. 95% of the time, people looking out for themselves actually helps the whole. The other 5% is where government comes in.</p>
<p>^ I’d say that’s generally true. People don’t really need that much in order to be happy, which is to say that I would suggest that it’s based not so much in physical possessions than in personal pride and psychological well-being</p>
<p>also, good on you stud for keeping this thread clean. If any of you remember [this</a> thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html), you’ll know that intellectual discussions here can easily get out of hand</p>