Hedonism

[Karen J]

No active hedonism thread in this section? That seems strange to me. Hedonism and recreational drug use seem to go together very well. Good luck finding another philosophy or religion that says it's okay.

The common stereotype says that hedonists make a lot of foolish decisions, but there's no such thing as a philosophy that is linked to a specific level of intelligence. You can be a genius and also be a hedonist.

Without externally imposed morals, personal decisions come down to nothing but risks, consequences, and your own personal comfort level.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Totally behind hedonism. "Real" or what I like to call "enlightened hedonism" is almost always good for everyone around you and not just for yourself. Life is often hard with plenty of suffering so any real joy you can find is worth all your efforts imo.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I'm pretty much a hedonist but I don't think it's necessarily a good thing. If anything I think people could stand to be less self centered myself included.

 

[Ninae]

I'm a hedonist with regrets.

 

[socko]

What defines who is a hedonist? How do you even know? Is empathy related to hedonism?

 

[drug_mentor]

What do you mean by hedonism?

You can be a psychological hedonist, on this view pleasure is the main (or only, on the strongest version) thing which motivates human behaviour. I don't think this is very plausible for describing the human population as a whole, although it (at least the weaker version) certainly seems true of certain individuals.

You can be an ethical hedonist, and this can take at least two forms. There is hedonistic egoism which says that right action consists in the agent pursuing pleasure for themselves. There is hedonistic utilitarianism which says you should always promote happiness, generally to the maximum possible degree.

It seems to me that a strong argument could be made that excessive drug use is not conducive to personal well being, so even the hedonistic egoist is likely to think that heavy drug use is not ethical for most people, although of course they could endorse drug use in more moderate forms. Regardless of the extent to which this view can accommodate drug use, it seems like a pretty unattractive ethical theory to me.

Utilitarianism in all its forms is quite a demanding ethical theory, it is highly doubtful that a hedonistic utilitarian could condone an agent spending any sum of money on drugs when that money could go towards alleviating poverty and suffering. The utilitarian will often distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, I have never read any utilitarian literature which had any focus on drug use but my guess is that drugs would fall into the latter category.

I think you are quite mistaken to assume that philosophy generally says drug use is not okay. I doubt if most versions of virtue ethics or deontology would expressly prohibit drug use. The irony is that out of the currently popular ethical systems the one which has a hedonistic version (utilitarianism) is probably the most likely of the bunch to frown upon drug use. Out of the different forms of utilitarianism I don't think the hedonistic version is the most drug friendly, I am pretty sure a preference utilitarian is less likely to frown upon drug use than a hedonistic utilitarian.

I often find when people say they are a hedonist what they mean is something to the effect of "I think you should be able to do what you think feels good". Within reason I don't disagree with this statement. But, taken by itself it isn't a very interesting, comprehensive or informative philosophy, and within reason it is consistent with quite a number of more expressly action guiding ethical theories.

 

[Ninae]

Yea, I think the reasoning that there can be no objections to drugs because drugs make you feel good has a lot of problems, where do you even begin.

 

[socko]

I've taken drugs, but I have never thought of myself as a hedonist, not even while on them.

 

[Kittycat5]

Goddammit drug_mentor. You always make me question the few things I believe to be true about myself. I guess I too would like a more formal definition of hedonism to answer properly but tend to think most individual acts of hedonism are perfectly acceptable.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I'm pretty much a hedonist but I don't think it's necessarily a good thing. If anything I think people could stand to be less self centered myself included.

Hedonism does not have to be self centered in any total respect. For example If I do a favor for a friend and do it as a pleasure to myself in helping him or her out that is selfish and also beneficial to others. That's what I call enlightened hedonism. If we, imo, really know what will bring us the most pleasure long and short term it almost always benefits others.

 

[Ninae]

Yes, but I think that overlooks that what benefits others is sometimes what brings us pain.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I think you are pretty much missing what I'm saying. If we really know what ultimately benefits us in the short and long run it will not be harmful to others. But if in the moment I want to rape my sister that will bring suffering and likely imprisonment for me. Does that sound beneficial to anyone? That's why I made a distinction between garden variety hedonism and enlightened hedonism. Some people don't get the difference no matter how I try to explain it.

 

[drug_mentor]

Cosmic Trigger I have never encountered enlightened hedonism before, could you speak a bit more about it?

I can think of at least two ways to interpret what you have said so far:

i) Enlightened hedonism is a form of indirect consequentialism, in that it advocates living in accordance with certain rules or principles over constant deliberation and says that acting in accordance with what brings pleasure to oneself generally promotes good consequences.

This account is not totally implausible, however, it seems to me that in order to be consistent with promoting the best consequences it must presuppose that people are generally much more altruistic than many would think is plausible. It sounds like maybe the self-interested action is one that someone would perform after an idealised kind of self-reflection, in which case the doctrine would turn into a form direct consequentialism. The reason I think the proponent of such a view is committed to indirect consequentialism is because on the direct version there would be many cases in which deliberation showed the way to promote the best consequences was to completely disregard ones own interests, in which case the egoistic component vanishes.

If the view was a form of satisficing consequentialism then the egoistic component might hold up a little better. Satisficing consequentialism says we don't have to maximise good consequences, we only have to promote a certain amount of goodness which satisfies the minimum requirement then we can do what we want so long as we don't harm others. I don't think many people subscribe to satisficing consequentialism these days, for one thing, no matter what level of goodness you decide is sufficient it seems that the decision would ultimately be based on arbitrary considerations which are hard to justify.

There is a problem with indirect consequentialism more generally which I won't go into unless you state you are committed to this view.

ii) The agent should act in order to bring the most pleasure to herself because doing so benefits others.

I find this to be a self-defeating claim. If the reason egoistic behaviour is justified is that it promotes some external good (i.e. benefit to others) then it seems what is really valued is the external good. In this case, if more external good could be achieved by acting contrary to what brings the agent pleasure, which seems quite plausible in many circumstances, then more of what is valued on this account would often be achieved by acting contrary to what is prescribed.

Perhaps we could weaken this account to make it more plausible:

iia) It is permissible for the agent to act in order to bring the most pleasure to herself because doing so benefits others.

This would be better, but ultimately it still looks like what is valued is benefit to other people. It isn't clear why the proponent of this view would want to endorse pleasure seeking behaviour over other kinds of behaviour which benefit others. I doubt if such a view could really be described as egoistic hedonism. Perhaps if the benefit for others was defined in terms of pleasure it could be called hedonistic, but in any case, this seems to be a departure from what you have said so far.

I should say that the reason I formulated ii) and iia) as the agent acting to bring the most pleasure to themselves is because it seems to me this account is most consistent with egoistic hedonism, also because many (perhaps even most) ethical theories don't expressly prohibit the agent from seeking pleasure and I felt this was the easiest (perhaps the only) way to make it a standalone normative doctrine, as opposed to a merely permissible option which is consistent with many more informative ethical theories.

 

[Foreigner]

I too am not totally clear on how we are defining hedonism here.

My understanding is that, similar to the expression "beauty is truth, truth is beauty", the same is applied to "pleasure" under hedonism. If it feels good sensually then it's likely to lead you to a good place. It's possible to become more realized through pleasure, just as through pain. They are both illusory and two sides of the same coin. Following what feels good is not wrong and our society has so much shame and guilt around feeling good. It's just important to practice discernment no matter what you do.

A lot of tantric traditions speak highly of this, with some caveats:
- pleasure can be depleting, especially sexual pleasure
- pleasure seeking with complete disregard for others is karmically harmful to oneself
- similarly, pleasure without compassion is empty of virtue
- some things that seem good at first can be harmful later, therefore it's not enough to seek pleasure but it must have a net outcome of being holistically advantageous

 

[Kittycat5]

Why must pleasurable acts benefit anyone but the individual? Why not the agent should act in a manner that brings the most pleasure to themself provided it does no harm to others? Im not understanding the link between satisying ones needs and others benefitting from it. I understand its a possibility, but as the basis of a definition of hedonism, it seems paradoxical.

 

[drug_mentor]

Kittycat5 I am not sure if your question is directed at me or Cosmic Trigger, but I will address it because I can see how you might have got such an idea from my post.

I am not claiming that pleasurable acts must benefit anyone but the individual, I was responding to CT's assertion that enlightened hedonism almost always benefits others. It seemed to me that on his view hedonistic acts derive some justification or value through having a benefit that goes beyond the agents pleasure. My intention was not to put words in CT's mouth, I was merely exploring some views which I thought he might be driving at.

The traditional type of hedonism which is closest to your formulation is a form of ethical egoism. I don't think that not harming others would be a necessary requirement because the central claim is only that goodness consists in achieving pleasure for oneself, but I am certain there would be formulations of egoistic hedonism which incorporate a do not harm clause of sorts.

Whether you incorporate such a clause or not I think there are negative implications from suggesting that what the agent ought to do above all else is pursue their own pleasure. It seems to me a very shallow view which fails to capture just about anything which most people would regard as morally praiseworthy.

 

[Kittycat5]

It wasnt aimed at anyone really. I think we are somewhat in agreement that hedonism need not benefit the masses at all. Unlike the debate that went on about altruism, hedonistic acts can be selfish.

I do agree total hedonism with complete disregard of anything or anyone else as long as pleasure is achieved is not a sustainable philosophy or way to live. I would have to think a bit more if one of your, my or no clause is best as I lack the education and/or experience of you all on these matters. But thats good to me. Must consider different views to really know which is best.

 

[Karen J]

I'm someone who cares more about actions than words, and I see a lot of hedonistic behavior in the world, often from people who never use the word in ordinary conversation. Maybe they've been indoctrinated by society to consider hedonism to be nothing but a character flaw, so there's no advantage to them to use the term. If so, that's a hedonistic line of thought.

I think hedonism is a fundamental part of human nature, and we automatically return to it when we aren't making an effort to be something else. It's our baseline philosophy. And we return to those thought patterns a lot more often than we realize or care to admit. This conclusion matches well with a lot of things I've read in thick books, but my belief about this didn't come from a book.

I see hedonism making a bit of a comeback, in an increasingly chaotic and tough world where anyone who isn't a close friend or relative is likely to treat you like an enemy. This is tearing down everything that isn't hedonism.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Cosmic Trigger I have never encountered enlightened hedonism before, could you speak a bit more about it?

I can think of at least two ways to interpret what you have said so far:

i) Enlightened hedonism is a form of indirect consequentialism, in that it advocates living in accordance with certain rules or principles over constant deliberation and says that acting in accordance with what brings pleasure to oneself generally promotes good consequences.

This account is not totally implausible, however, it seems to me that in order to be consistent with promoting the best consequences it must presuppose that people are generally much more altruistic than many would think is plausible. It sounds like maybe the self-interested action is one that someone would perform after an idealised kind of self-reflection, in which case the doctrine would turn into a form direct consequentialism. The reason I think the proponent of such a view is committed to indirect consequentialism is because on the direct version there would be many cases in which deliberation showed the way to promote the best consequences was to completely disregard ones own interests, in which case the egoistic component vanishes.

If the view was a form of satisficing consequentialism then the egoistic component might hold up a little better. Satisficing consequentialism says we don't have to maximise good consequences, we only have to promote a certain amount of goodness which satisfies the minimum requirement then we can do what we want so long as we don't harm others. I don't think many people subscribe to satisficing consequentialism these days, for one thing, no matter what level of goodness you decide is sufficient it seems that the decision would ultimately be based on arbitrary considerations which are hard to justify.

There is a problem with indirect consequentialism more generally which I won't go into unless you state you are committed to this view.

ii) The agent should act in order to bring the most pleasure to herself because doing so benefits others and


I find this to be a self-defeating claim. If the reason egoistic behaviour is justified is that it promotes some external good (i.e. benefit to others) then it seems what is really valued is the external good. In this case, if more external good could be achieved by acting contrary to what brings the agent pleasure, which seems quite plausible in many circumstances, then more of what is valued on this account would often be achieved by acting contrary to what is prescribed.

Perhaps we could weaken this account to make it more plausible:

iia) It is permissible for the agent to act in order to bring the most pleasure to herself because doing so benefits others.

This would be better, but ultimately it still looks like what is valued is benefit to other people. It isn't clear why the proponent of this view would want to endorse pleasure seeking behaviour over other kinds of behaviour which benefit others. I doubt if such a view could really be described as egoistic hedonism. Perhaps if the benefit for others was defined in terms of pleasure it could be called hedonistic, but in any case, this seems to be a departure from what you have said so far.

I should say that the reason I formulated ii) and iia) as the agent acting to bring the most pleasure to themselves is because it seems to me this account is most consistent with egoistic hedonism, also because many (perhaps even most) ethical theories don't expressly prohibit the agent from seeking pleasure and I felt this was the easiest (perhaps the only) way to make it a standalone normative doctrine, as opposed to a merely permissible option which is consistent with many more informative ethical theories.

Yes I think it's like your No. 1. One of the important parts of this imo is what is best "in the long run". It's a way of accessing value on happiness. Will you be happier smoking cigarettes and risking your future health and that of others possibly or learning to do without for other benefits. You have to weigh it up and see what benefits you most. Now most people when presented like this would say I'll forgo the cigs. That would likely benefit others. But it's not a hard and fast thing. I said "usually". One might decide to smoke feeling that the pleasures are worth the risks. So in some cases others would not benefit but imo and from experience if you really weigh up what is going to make you happier overall in time it will most of the time benefit others or be at least neutral.

Now maybe this is not correct but from experience I've seen that it is. One last example. Sometimes I see humanity as a pretty negative species. So when I walk down the street I ignore people and I'm sure I don't have an inviting look on my face. One day I realized that no one is to blame for being a human being and what we all need is a little compassion for the dire straights we often find ourselves in. So I began to greet people and smile at them which really made me feel a lot better than the minor pleasure of hating on them. It also made many of them feel better too. So now I see that for me it's more enlightened to express compassion than disgust or hatred even if on some level you might say it's warranted and as I see, others benefit.

 

[drug_mentor]

Karen J, I don't understand why you haven't indicated exactly what you mean by hedonism, my initial post in this thread should have made it clear that this can be interpreted in a number of ways. I think this discussion would be more productive if you gave a precise account of your stance.

I think hedonism is a fundamental part of human nature, and we automatically return to it when we aren't making an effort to be something else. It's our baseline philosophy. And we return to those thought patterns a lot more often than we realize or care to admit.

Based on the comment quoted above I am taking you to be talking about psychological hedonism (defined at the beginning of post #6), but because psychological hedonism is consistent with various forms of ethical hedonism I am going to make a couple of comments in relation to that as well.

I'm someone who cares more about actions than words, and I see a lot of hedonistic behavior in the world, often from people who never use the word in ordinary conversation. Maybe they've been indoctrinated by society to consider hedonism to be nothing but a character flaw, so there's no advantage to them to use the term. If so, that's a hedonistic line of thought.

It seems your primary reason for believing that psychological hedonism is true is based on your observations. I don't think anyone can deny that most people act so as to bring about pleasure in their lives with some regularity, but I am not sure how you can get from this fact to the thought that the majority of their actions are performed with the primary goal of getting pleasure for themselves. A person can perform an action from which they derive pleasure without pleasure necessarily serving as the primary motivation for the performance of said action. It seems to me that many people regularly act in ways which would be hard to interpret as pleasure seeking. I find the notion that you can find a single motivation for the majority of actions performed by the majority of people highly dubious, regardless of what the motivation is claimed to be.

My main objection to psychological hedonism (and egoism more generally) is that it is an unfalsifiable thesis. The part of the above quote in bold suggests to me that you would agree it is unfalsifiable. If I point to altruistic behaviour and extreme forms of self-sacrifice, the psychological hedonist/egoist will generally respond that the agent is doing these things because they derive pleasure from them. In general I think these kinds of "heads - I win, tails - you lose" positions are essentially worthless when it comes to an attempt at having fruitful discussion, and I don't think they have any explanatory power.

In relation to ethical egoism I feel obliged to point out that both egoistic hedonism and hedonistic utilitarianism are normative doctrines. It does not matter what people actually do, normative ethical theories are about what people ought to do. Even if most people do act in order to get pleasure for themselves it does not follow from this that people should act in this way. Moreover, people act contrary to their expressed ethical beliefs regularly, I know I have personally performed actions that I think were wrong. The point here is that it does not follow that those who act in accordance with hedonism think that they or others ought to be hedonists. For these reasons your observations about the world are not sufficient grounds to advance any form of hedonism as a normative ethical theory.

CT it is late here and I am going to bed, I will respond to you in the near future.