What's wrong with hedonism?

[Time Commander Bob]

The word hedonist is often used in these forums as unfortunately something to be ashamed of, yet I would argue that this is hardly the case at all. Furthermore, many people hold if unknowingly hedonistic perspectives.

First, let's clarify what hedonism is: That the only intrinsic good is pleasure and that the only intrinsic evil is pain. This is used as the starting point for utilitarianism, which various approaches formulate how best to evaluate pleasure and pain and how competing interests should be weighed. However, this isn't a topic about utilitarianism but merely about the basic principle of hedonism on which it rests, so I won't go into the specific details.

So what is pleasure and pain? Pleasure is what people inherently like and pain what people inherently dislike. When one eats a cake, they like the taste of it and thus find it pleasurable. However, one does not need to know why they find the taste of the cake pleasurable to enjoy it, nor do people set out and decide that they will like the cake; the response is involuntary even when the action is not so (though it must be noted that obviously what one finds pleasurable can change over time, but I cannot think of any cases where it changes at the will of the individual). Pain is quite similar, burning one's hand will hurt and we have no choice but to dislike the response.

From these inherent responses, it must be deduced that in any state of time for an individual:
A state of pleasure preferable to one without
A state without pain preferable to one with
A state of pleasure preferable to a state with pain

It must be said that there is more to pleasure than orgies and buffets, and more to pain than physical torture. Pleasure includes states of satisfaction, pride, belonging and various intellectual pleasures. Pain similarly could include anxiety, depression, fear and others. How these could be ranked and compared is another discussion in itself, but suffice to say that both categories and very broad.

The experience of pleasure and pain is why most people value living to not being living because there are potential rewards in living whilst death is an unknown where the prospect of pleasure may not be as great or non-existent. Similarly, it explains some of the rationale behind why people might commit suicide (however, one must note that in many cases the judgement of future pleasure and pain is misguided or distorted).

So we return to the original statement: the only intrinsic good is pleasure and the only intrinsic evil is pain.
Whether this is correct depends on one's definition of good and evil; if used in an absolutist way then obviously this statement cannot be verified, though nor can any absolutist moral statement (not to mean that this makes the original statement therefore valid, that would be a fallacy). So when one says that "xyz" is moral and "abc" is immoral, I should think that they cannot verify these statements since no-one in my opinion has bridged the gaping chasm of the is-ought gap. Rather what is being done is that the person is stating their preference of how things should be. So saying "Killing is wrong" is in actuality a statement that "I don't want people to be killed". Whence is the origin of such preferences? That's right, emotion and what drives emotion is pleasure and pain. Absolutists I think are really closet hedonists who would wish the world to operate in ways in which is to their pleasure and are no better than the hedonists they would scoff at.

[Mr. Crow]

the thing is that you must consider future pleasures, by indulging yourself today you may surfer tomorrow,

[strategist.com]

the thing is that you must consider future pleasures, by indulging yourself today you may surfer tomorrow,

Seconded in my experience it is very true.

[Helm]

It's better to avoid being an over weight, drug addicted, porn obsessed alcoholic if you can help it. "Nothing in excess" is the general guideline.

[Taiji]

I think 'hedonist' is just a silly label, and that many philosophers seem to like silly labels. But 'hedonistic' can be used to describe behaviours that focus on the pursuit of sex and drugs induced pleasure at the risk of other endeavours, and without the speaker sounding like a silly* philosopher (*the silly labels point).

Who honestly refers to the joys of childrearing, or learning science, or the pleasurable pride about the emotional security that self-discipline induces, when speaking about hedonism? That's right, noone bar some head in the clouds philosopher.

So as a word it isn't about pleasure exactly but a just a certain kind - The sex and drugs kind.

Or am I thinking of debauchery? It's a common synonym.

[Himster]

Hedonism can be stretched to mean basicly anything, hell you could even include the opposite within it's definition (aescetism can be pleasurable in a masochistic way).

At it's very core hedonism is a school of thought that holds pleasure as being the only intrinsic good: this can include inducing pleasure in others and even the worst, most indulgent school of hedonism (cyrenaic) recognised the pleasure in altruism.

"Happiness" can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that "the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure" is to declare that "the proper value is whatever you happen to value" – which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication.

[Denny Crane!]

Hedonism barely exists historically it was such a minor movement both East and West. The more philosophically sound and popular movement was that of epicureanism and it makes sense.

[Monarchist]

Hedonism is unfortunate because of its effects on both the intellect and the will. These two faculties are the most important, though memory and imagination are both terribly affected by a hedonistic habit.

Remember the old dictum: the appetite is moved by the presence of its proper object. The concupiscible appetite (which is directed towards pleasures of the body) is moved to action by the sensible presence of cake, an erect penis, firm breasts, a playground slide, water, and all other desirable material objects according to their faculty. The subject (actor) is always driven towards the object (thing acted upon) by the appetite, but only if the object desired is present. Now, what does hedonism do but make the proper object of the concupiscible appetite present? Hedonism actively seeks to place the concupiscible object in front of the person's eyes, ears, mouth, nose, and hands. Nothing else can occur, in this situation, except the movement of the appetite toward the object, the activation of its lusts and various obsessions being assured.

Once a hedonistic habit is firmly established, four things generally occur. They are all a corruption in some way or another. Firstly, the intellect-faculty is slowly given more and more to thinking about the hedonistic object in itself, such as marijuana, cake, the erect penis, and the glass of water. As the intellect is given more to think of the object its appetite most desires, it generally becomes darker and darker because it is less open to other, more important things. Secondly, the memory-faculty (intimately attached to the intellectual faculty) becomes so ingrained with images of the hedonistic object in question that it can start to remember that object at the slightest, most unrelated promptings from the world around! In this instance, a tall monument with a very slightly phallic shape can suddenly lead the memory to imagine all the erect penises the intellect has so enjoyed. This is a distraction, and most manifestly corrupts the memory.

The third faculty to be corrupted by hedonism is the imagination. The imagination does, over time, store certain images by nature. We've all heard that one pornographic scene impressed on the imagination doesn't leave the memory for years and years. Now, what can this lead to but a corruption of the imaginative faculty, by constantly bombarding it with superfluous imagery? The mind is reduced to a mere image-factory, making visual metaphors out of everything just so the intellect can see a piece of cake or firm breasts, even in the most ridiculously unrelated things. Fourthly, the will is corrupted. It is generally the more important faculty, because it takes ideas in the intellect, memories in the memory, and images in the imagination, puts them all together, and acts upon them. It is informed by all three, and is the cause of all action. Doing something is always an action of the will, and is always free in nature; however, hedonism slowly corrupts this by weakening its ability to resist the images, memories, and ideas brought on by hedonism. The will is gradually made more pathetic, soft, and effeminate (in the abstract, pleasure-seeking, immature sense), and loses its sense of right judgment because it's constantly focused on attaining pleasures and the proper object of its disordered appetite, be it cake or the vagina.

Moderation is the key in this dilemma. In order to redirect the faculties to a proper order, hedonism has to be conquered, and such actions ignored by the individual. This has nothing to do with religion, God, Jesus Christ, Allah, et. al., but is applied to everyone. These faculties do exist; they are extremely capable of being heightened, just as much as they are capable of being deadened by excessive and disordered use. Distraction upon distraction is the way of hedonism, and it destroys the ability of the four primary faculties to reason. Those atheists who profess to be reasonable logicians, with their heads held high in smug repose, but who also advocate hedonism and enjoying life as much as possible, obviously haven't even read the most basic philosophy that is powerful to all human beings.

Be a mediator: go in the middle, and live sensibly and simply. Nothing more can be gained from this than a happy life.

[Helm]

You don't really get to feel the power of


Cooooooooooooooooorwoooaghhhhhhh!!!!!!!

When you're too preoccupied about erect penis, firm breasted vagina cakes. Some good words this site lets you get away with, still can't say and though.

[SigniferOne]

What's wrong with hedonism?

Simple. That it puts pleasure and not virtue as its goal.

let's clarify what hedonism is: That the only intrinsic good is pleasure and that the only intrinsic evil is pain.

More specifically, physical pleasure and pain. No one calls a person who 'enjoys asceticism' a hedonist. It is people who are sensual and must acquire physical pleasure at all costs, or consider it the most important thing in the world, that are called hedonists.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Simple. That it puts pleasure and not virtue as its goal.

I enjoy mastering and improving myself, I'm sure you do too. I enjoy emotions other than joy. I understand hedonism is usually restricted to shallow pleasures, but when you look at things broadly pleasure is really a good goal to aim for - pursue happiness, essentially.

[Jack04]

More specifically, physical pleasure and pain. No one calls a person who 'enjoys asceticism' a hedonist. It is people who are sensual and must acquire physical pleasure at all costs, or consider it the most important thing in the world, that are called hedonists.

I would consider that all pleasure is essentially chemically derived and therefore "physical" in a certain sense of the word, be it through satisfaction (as someone who enjoys asceticism may derive pleasure) or something more direct (sexual acts, for example). At the end of the day, all pleasure appears to be defined within our nervous system, so there really is very little physical difference between the two forms of pleasure.

[Time Commander Bob]

Generally my responses will revolve around a similar theme: that hedonism seems to have a flexible meaning. As I dislike arguing over labels as opposed to concepts, I will clarify my interpretation of hedonism and why I interpret it as such.

the thing is that you must consider future pleasures, by indulging yourself today you may surfer tomorrow,

It's better to avoid being an over weight, drug addicted, porn obsessed alcoholic if you can help it. "Nothing in excess" is the general guideline.

I do not disagree and nor does the conflict with any definition of hedonism, but rather its application. The means of maximising pleasure over one period of time may not be the same as over a longer period of time. Which is why addiction to processes that whilst are pleasurable in the short term but have longer term consequences is not a good idea.
If it is possible to measure the amount of pleasure in a given state of time, then a hedonist could argue that it is not just best to maximise pleasure (P) at any given time (t), but the sum of all pleasures at all times during one's life. The integral of P dt, quite literally hedonic calculus. The excesses that Helm has stated do not satisfy this as often such pleasures last for a short while, have bad after effects and suffer from diminishing returns - more of it is required to simulate the same response next time.

I think 'hedonist' is just a silly label, and that many philosophers seem to like silly labels. But 'hedonistic' can be used to describe behaviours that focus on the pursuit of sex and drugs induced pleasure at the risk of other endeavours, and without the speaker sounding like a silly* philosopher (*the silly labels point).

Who honestly refers to the joys of childrearing, or learning science, or the pleasurable pride about the emotional security that self-discipline induces, when speaking about hedonism? That's right, noone bar some head in the clouds philosopher.

So as a word it isn't about pleasure exactly but a just a certain kind - The sex and drugs kind.

Or am I thinking of debauchery? It's a common synonym.

If it seems silly, then call it something else like hedonism+. Most people in ordinary language use the word weight similarly but fundamentally differently to how it is used in physics, but it does not make the physicists silly. Words often have context in which they are used. In philosophical discussion, hedonism should be used in its philosophical context.

Hedonism can be stretched to mean basicly anything, hell you could even include the opposite within it's definition (aescetism can be pleasurable in a masochistic way).

At it's very core hedonism is a school of thought that holds pleasure as being the only intrinsic good: this can include inducing pleasure in others and even the worst, most indulgent school of hedonism (cyrenaic) recognised the pleasure in altruism.

"Happiness" can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that "the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure" is to declare that "the proper value is whatever you happen to value" – which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication.

Hedonism can be stretched, though I consider myself to have good reason to strectch its definiton: all pleasure and pain is fundamentally physical in nature since all forms use the physical interface of the human brain and at the end they are all judged involuntarily to be inherently liked or disliked. The process may be more complex in some forms of pleasure than others, but the end result is similar and comparable.

Masochism I consider to be a false paradox (not that I am stating you used it as such). If one enjoys something, it cannot be considered pain in the way that I have used it. Perhaps a masochist is one that takes pleasure from damaging themselves would be a better way of expressing the term.

Your point of happiness being the purpose of ethics but not the standard is related to the naturalistic fallacy (Moore's not the is-ought fallacy) and ethical hedonists that state that pleasure is good are guilty of it. Rather, one should look at it matter of factly and see that almost all beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain will try to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, however this may be. Ethical statements are nothing more than preferences that derive from the ability to experience pleasure and pain, however they may be disguised (or not).

Hedonism barely exists historically it was such a minor movement both East and West. The more philosophically sound and popular movement was that of epicureanism and it makes sense.

I don't mean to pick on you in particular as this the phrase often stated by people, but what do you mean by an ethical perspective making "more sense"? I take it to you mean you would rather have a society living by epicureanism than hedonism as it is popularly depicted, in which case such a preference relies on your ability to experience pleasure and pain (note that this is a preference I would agree with). A point that I perhaps did not fully develop is that people's ethical judgements are based on their own ability to feel pleasure and pain. An conscious automaton without this faculty would not care whether it was right or wrong to murder since its own death means nothing to it. It is why often science fiction that depicts robots taking over the world is ridiculous unless someone programmed such robots to feel pleasure or pain (in which case that somone is a bit foolish). We find murder or rape disgusting as we would find a rotting carcass disgusting. It is this revulsion and the fear that if we allow it then it may impact ourselves which is the basis of all ethical statements.

Hedonism is unfortunate because of its effects on both the intellect and the will. These two faculties are the most important, though memory and imagination are both terribly affected by a hedonistic habit.
...
Be a mediator: go in the middle, and live sensibly and simply. Nothing more can be gained from this than a happy life.

For the reason that all pleasures are ultimately physical and that it is the sum of pleasures that should be maximised, my interpretation of hedonism is perhaps not applicable here. I would not disagree with your points were hedonism to be equivalent to short term gratification, but I have interpreted it not to be so. The good thing about the pleasure of obtaining knowledge is that even if it suffers diminishing returns like other pleasures, it has no painful effects later on (generally anyway). This means that the sum of pleasure and pain from seeking knowledge is going to be greater than being an alcoholic.

Simple. That it puts pleasure and not virtue as its goal.

What do you understand virtue as being and why being virtuous should be the goal of all people. Show me how you decide which traits are virtues and which are not, if indeed it is so simple.

More specifically, physical pleasure and pain. No one calls a person who 'enjoys asceticism' a hedonist. It is people who are sensual and must acquire physical pleasure at all costs, or consider it the most important thing in the world, that are called hedonists.

All pleasure is physical as I have said above because it all filters through the same system. Furthermore, I would call someone who enjoys asceticism a hedonist for the same reason a masochist is a hedonist even though they damage themselves. If you dislike my interpretation of hedonism call it something else if you will.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't mean to pick on you in particular as this the phrase often stated by people, but what do you mean by an ethical perspective making "more sense"?

I didn't mean it from an ethical perspective. I just meant that it is not a self destructive philosophy and has at its roots a well grounded base that informs it as a position.

I take it to you mean you would rather have a society living by epicureanism than hedonism as it is popularly depicted, in which case such a preference relies on your ability to experience pleasure and pain (note that this is a preference I would agree with). A point that I perhaps did not fully develop is that people's ethical judgements are based on their own ability to feel pleasure and pain. An conscious automaton without this faculty would not care whether it was right or wrong to murder since its own death means nothing to it. It is why often science fiction that depicts robots taking over the world is ridiculous unless someone programmed such robots to feel pleasure or pain (in which case that somone is a bit foolish). We find murder or rape disgusting as we would find a rotting carcass disgusting. It is this revulsion and the fear that if we allow it then it may impact ourselves which is the basis of all ethical statements.

There wasn't a value judgement in my statement. Buddhism also makes sense to me in that as a system it is easily explained and doesn't involve circular reasoning and isn't based on a non sequiter.

[Taiji]

If it seems silly, then call it something else like hedonism+. Most people in ordinary language use the word weight similarly but fundamentally differently to how it is used in physics, but it does not make the physicists silly. Words often have context in which they are used. In philosophical discussion, hedonism should be used in its philosophical context.

It seems you made it personal somehow, and I'm not sure you really wanted to.

So here's a little correction for you:

If it seems a silly use of the word, then call it something else like hedonist+. Most people in ordinary language use the word weight similarly but fundamentally differently to how it is used in physics, but it does not make the physicist's special use of the word weight silly. Words often have context in which they are used. In philosophical discussion, hedonism should be used in its philosophical context.

You'll find a subforum for Philosophy if you look above the threads in this forum. You can avoid the apparent heckling of people that aren't playing that game if you use that subforum. Just a suggestion.

[Time Commander Bob]

It seems you made it personal somehow, and I'm not sure you really wanted to.

So here's a little correction for you:



You'll find a subforum for Philosophy if you look above the threads in this forum. You can avoid the apparent heckling of people that aren't playing that game if you use that subforum. Just a suggestion.

Oh I meant no personal offence I assure you, all I meant that words should be evaluated in the context they are given which I am sure you would agree with. Perhaps next time I will post in the philosophy subforum though the differences between them seem quite vague and most of the people who would reply are the same anyway.

It is indeed that simple, that's what moral and ethical philosophy is for. Read some Aristotle and Cicero when you have time. I suppose I can expand on it here but you wouldn't want me to write walls of words, would you?

Suffice it to say that virtue is moral excellence, and since man is a moral creature most of all, his aim should be the perfection of his moral faculties. He is indeed also an animal creature, and thus operated by physical pleasures like other animals, but these are low faculties, which are not wrong or immoral, but should be subjected to the higher faculties of man, namely again -- his will, morals, and intellect.

I did read Nicomachean Ethics a while back and from what I can remember Aristotle's judgement of virtues was reasonably consequentialist in that he theorised the consequences of an excess of a quality and deemed it undesirable for both an individual and society. I can't exactly remember all the details of his definition of Eudamonia so I'll have to reread some of his stuff again.

That's plainly untrue, because physical pleasure is triggered directly and solely by the five senses, and thus is concretely associated with the nerve associations of those five senses. Intellectual joy is associated with nothing sensory at all, it has no sensation, and is impossible to pin down with any sensible attributes.

I must disagree with you here to an extent because it is hard to imagine any amount of intellectual joy without having sensory stimulus. How can one read a book if they cannot see or appreciate music if they cannot hear? Furthermore, even to devise abstract thought sensory input is necessary initially to stimulate the mind and allow analogies so such abstractions can be thought of more clearly.

[SigniferOne]

What do you understand virtue as being and why being virtuous should be the goal of all people. Show me how you decide which traits are virtues and which are not, if indeed it is so simple.

It is indeed that simple, that's what moral and ethical philosophy is for. Read some Aristotle and Cicero when you have time. I suppose I can expand on it here but you wouldn't want me to write walls of words, would you?

Suffice it to say that virtue is moral excellence, and since man is a moral creature most of all, his aim should be the perfection of his moral faculties. He is indeed also an animal creature, and thus operated by physical pleasures like other animals, but these are low faculties, which are not wrong or immoral, but should be subjected to the higher faculties of man, namely again -- his will, morals, and intellect.

All pleasure is physical as I have said above because it all filters through the same system.

That's plainly untrue, because physical pleasure is triggered directly and solely by the five senses, and thus is concretely associated with the nerve associations of those five senses. Intellectual joy is associated with nothing sensory at all, it has no sensation, and is impossible to pin down with any sensible attributes.

Furthermore, I would call someone who enjoys asceticism a hedonist for the same reason a masochist is a hedonist even though they damage themselves.

No if he derived physical pleasure from asceticism and the hurt inflicted on himself, then he would indeed be a kind of masochist.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The lack of individual dignity that it's systematic exercise implies.

[Dr. Croccer]

Because hedonism is self-destructive to both individual and community. It's not a viable way to lead one's life.

[Helm]

America is still somewhat Christian and it is a somewhat hedonistic society. Hedonism being at the heart of capitalism ultimately. The Soviet Union by contrast was somewhat austre and somewhat atheist.

The German bararians were civilised and moral enough, they had a society based on a kind of Klingon code of honour. A kind of warrior ethic not that this was much altered by Christianity. If you've seen the film Beowulf that's what they were all about, at least that's how they liked to see themselves. I'll grant you that they could really read, write or build anything much before Christianity came their way but that was due to the the influence of the Roman Empire.