<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>In this situation, neither alternative really brings anyone happiness, but jumping on the grenade probably allowed the guy to feel less (long-term emotional) pain than he would have if he hadn’t jumped. And reducing pain increases the net happiness, so it’s still kind of hedonistic. Doing the selfless and morally correct thing made him “happy”, and he reduced his long-term pain because he knew he wouldn’t have to live knowing that his friends had died and he could have done something.
(There’s a point at which actions like this are sort of reflexive. If there was no thinking involved at all, an action couldn’t be consciously hedonistic, but it probably wouldn’t really be a “voluntary action” either.)</p>
<p>But did he do it for the purpose of reducing his own pain?</p>
<p>@maplesurrup: Well, that was to be expected. You can’t create a thread titled “Science vs. Religion” and not expect an emotional, passion-filled, debate, with tons of ad hominems and red herrings. It’s just a controversial topic in general.</p>
<p>Pretty much. Even when MosbyMarion and Mifune were being reasonably civil, someone would enter and be like “all religious people are morons!” or “atheists are evil scumbags!”</p>
<p>^^ as far as that goes, of course we don’t always do the thing that will make us happiest - otherwise we’d never regret anything. In the case where someone forfeits their lives to save a friend or loved one, I think there can still be an element of cost benefit analysis (albeit on a very instinctive level) involved. The split second thinking could be “this person will die, and that will scar me for the rest of my life” followed by a decision on how to stop that from happening, with the only solution being to fall on the grenade. Is this decision most conducive to long term benefit? Of course not, because you can’t have any benefit once you’re dead, and the situation just sucks all around. It could be considered, however, a decision that limits the negative effects of something, with the result of a friend dying being at that moment the worst conceivable outcome of any event.</p>
<p>
It is impossible to know his motive when jumping on a grenade. If, as halcyon pointed out, his goal was to reduce his pain and thereby increase his net happiness, he is clearly a hedonist. Perhaps the idea of living with survivors guilt was the impetus behind his actions, in which case his fear of emotional pain and unhappiness propelled him to such measures.
Suppose he had other intentions, such as posthumous heroism. In that case, his narcissistic and egotistical mind was the impetus behind such actions. Although he wouldn’t be around to see it, the very idea of being considered at such an elite status was enough cause for him to jump on a grenade. His life revolved around pleasure to such an extent that he followed it to the end and his hedonistic nature was what actually killed him.
Either way, I’d say he’s definitely a hedonist and there most certainly were calculations involved in his decision.</p>
<p>^Regardless, if we look at this consequentially, don’t his actions supersede his motives? Doesn’t the fact that he sacrificed himself mean more than his subtle desire to free himself from pain? I’m sure all good deeds are hedonistic in this fashion, because we act to fulfill ourselves always before others. It would make religion, with its emphasis on charity to secure personal salvation, just as hedonistic. </p>
<p>But if you look at the results, the action is moral and worthy. I suppose it depends: do intentions affect morality? Or can we simply look at the results?</p>
<p>Of course his actions supersede his motives. He saved the life of another and I’d never delve into why someone would choose to make such a radical, yet courageous decision if it wasn’t that this is all hypothetical. </p>
<p>I do believe that intentions affect morality. Let’s say a man decides to donate 10 million dollars to cancer research. If his intentions are so his name will appear on every American Cancer Association packet and he will create a “charitable” reputation for himself, once he has achieved his goal, there is no need to continue. However, the recognition he will inevitably receive may spur him to continue giving such charitable donations, while simultaneously feeding his selfish and egotistical self and breeding a power hungry man.
If his intentions are to help develop life-saving surgical techniques, regardless of the recognition he receives, he will continue with the charity to whatever degree he can. The giving that ensues, due to human nature, will make him a better man and perpetuate his generosity. </p>
<p>Basically, if you cultivate a person who gives for the sake of giving, they will continue giving because they’re acting altruistically and there is no reason to stop. The goal is not the end, the goal is the means itself, so to speak. Someone who gives selfishly will not continue to give once he has reached his purpose and so for him, the end IS the goal. Two very different people, with two very different results.</p>
<p>This is me trying to sound smart:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Edit: Someone deleted their post, I wasn’t the one who brought this back. :o</p>
<p>i didn’t delete the post! i bumped the thread saying “this is too cute” but now it’s gone. and i didn’t do it!!</p>