Hedonism
Let’s get clear about some definitions first:
Naturalist: One who tries to understand "Good" in
"NATURAL" terms. One who
reduces "Good" to something that can be investigated by science
(empirically).
Aristotle is a naturalist because he argues that
"good" is what is efficient in achieving it's ends (a quasi-empirical
concept).
Hedonism: an ethical theory which states that pleasure and
pleasure alone of intrinsic value.
Intrinsic
Value: Something has intrinsic value if it
is valuable for itself and not merely for some other reason.
Instrumental
Value: Something has instrumental value if
it is valuable to means of some other end (e.g.
money).
But it cannot be that everything is valued (or have
value) for some other reason for that would lead to an infinite regress. Thus, if we value anything at all there must
be something we value intrinsically. And
this thing (or things) of intrinsic value is what motivates all our actions. The Hedonist is claiming that one does not
value pleasure for some other reason, but rather values it
simply because it is what it is and has the qualities it has (intrinsically).
Some point out that there is distinction between valued
and valuable. The first is
straight forward empirical claim, especially if “valued” means
value-behavior. The meaning of the second
is less clear. It implies that what is
valuable is the object of rational desire. Something might be valuable to John, whether
John values it or not. Going to the
dentist is valuable even if I don’t in fact value it. But whether something is valuable or not may
differ from person to person given different objectives.
Note: Some maintain
that nothing can be valuable intrinsically if
valuable is defined instrumentally.
These claim that it would be better to say that something has intrinsic
value if it is valued in and of itself and something has instrumental
value if it is valuable as a means to some
other end.
Now. while many people would agree that pleasure has
intrinsic value, what distinguishes the Hedonist is the claim that pleasure is
the only thing of intrinsic value.
[P]leasure, and freedom from pain,
are the only things desirable as ends; and . . . all desirable things . . . are
desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the
promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.[1]
If this is true, it would simplify Ethics greatly. The ONLY thing that can make an action right
is that it leads to pleasure (or diminishes pain). The ONLY thing that can make an action wrong
is the is increases pain (or diminishes pleasure). There is only one “coin of the realm” so to
speak. All actions can be compared and evaluated
according to one and one variable: pleasure.
The ethic (practical consequence) implied by this statement of value is
that the right thing to do in a given situation is to
maximize pleasure (the thing of value) or minimize pain.
Hedonistic Ethical Directive: An action is right if and only if it results in the
greatest pleasure (or least pain)...
But the question immediately arises: Whose pleasure and pain?
Two variants: Egoistic Hedonism and Social Hedonism
1. Egoistic Hedonism
Egoism: An action is right if and only if it results in the
greatest good for the agent (himself or herself)
Some philosophers would be Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Ayn
Rand (1905–1982) and Epicurus (341-270 B.C.). While all would agree that
your moral responsibility is to look out for yourself (Egoism), they would
disagree as to what "good" means or implies.
By itself, Hedonism is an incomplete moral theory. since
it leaves unspecified whose pleasure is to be pursued. And Egoism is also an incomplete moral theory
since it leaves unspecified what “good” the individual is to
maximize. But put the two together and
you get…
Egoistic
Hedonist (Epicurus): an action is right if and
only if it results in the greatest pleasure for the agent (himself or herself).
Epicurus was
the most celebrated hedonist of classical times.
Now,
it should be mentioned that contemporarily, “Hedonism” carries with it a
negative connotation. If someone describes you as an
Hedonist, he or she is likely insulting you, charging you with excessive
indulgences, decadence and perhaps licentiousness.
But while Epicurus was an Egoist Hedonist, he did NOT
recommend a lascivious, decadent life-style. This is because many things we find
pleasurable can come back to haunt or damage us, especially if we overindulge
immodestly. Years ago, there was an item
on Dairy Queen’s menu called an Epicurean Delight. This was an over-the-top
banana split sundae that had different kinds of ice cream, whipped cream, nuts,
sprinkles, cherries and sauces and fudge and brownies and, well, basically
everything. It was named this as an homage to the classic hedonist of antiquity
Epicurus. (We were at the time a somewhat more literate society I believe.)
However, the irony is that Epicurus the philosopher
would probably not have recommended you eat an Epicurean Delight. Or at least
not very often, and even the you should probably split
it with someone. Why is that? Why would
an egoistic hedonist who tells you that you ought to go out and secure as much
pleasure for yourself as possible and you needn't worry about anyone else.
recommend that you NOT eat this decadent desert? Well because he said “Go
out and live as pleasant a life as possible.”
He did not say. “Go out and be an idiot.”
ex. Dairy Queen’s Epicurean
Delight ‑ Don't eat (often) because it's not healthy.
Similarly with Beer Too‑ don't
drink too much.
Ultimately, Epicurus recommends a modest, moral
life. (Don't lie, cheat, steel, because
it will take pleasure away from you eventually.) You must consider the consequences of immoral
antisocial conduct: (Consequences- prison, social isolation, worries). On balance, I live lives in accord with
traditional moral values will be the most pleasurable life, according to
Epicurus .
The “Good Life” = Moral, moderate life
because this is the most pleasant.
If true, then morality is simply a subset of prudential rationality. (I.e. what is moral is ALWAYS what best for YOU.)
Three key
presumptions which result in this:
1. Long term consequences (pleasures/pains) are as
important, if not more important, than short-term consequences
(pleasures/pains).
2. "Pleasure" is not merely instant
gratification or positive sensation, but is the
absence of annoying things.
Pleasure or the
"Good Life" defines not as instant gratification, but as tranquillity. Distinguishes
Between:
a.
kinetic pleasures
(such as eating) which coincide with activity and endure only so long as the
activity continues, and
b.
catastemic pleasures (not being hungry) which
coincide with a stable state and as such are capable of indefinite
prolongation.
There is nothing wrong with chara, the delights experienced
in kinetic pleasures, but they are by their nature ephemeral. One ought rather to seek ataraxia.
Ataraxia: A term used by Epicurus which means serenity
or blessed-ness.
To be free of pain and aggravation.
3. A life devoted to the acquisition of pleasure (the
positive kind) is NOT pleasant. In fact,
it's aggravating. (i.e.
There's always a nice newer BMW then yours.)
Notice that if you set for yourself the goal of “just a little bit more” you will never achieve satisfaction. Such a goal in never realizable and in fact, exhausting. (I had a student one time who referred to this as being on the “hedonic treadmill.”) There is an affinity with Buddhism here, I think, ‑holds the idea that the world (or rather our attachment to things in the world) is the source of our pains and suffering. One must retreat from the world to attain tranquillity.
Pleasure or the "Good Life" defined not as
instant gratification, but as tranquillity.
The
traditional virtues (justice, temperance, courage, etc.) are among the means
for living a
pleasant
life. They have no other value/
justification.
Problems:
1.
We just don’t believe him. That is we don’t believe that a life devoted to the acquisition
of delights is itself an unsatisfying or frustrating life. Further, each of his three presumptions are up
for debate. If I don’t think I HAVE a long term future, then postponing immediate gratification is
just silly.
(Thinks of the 60’s Cold War era where there was a great deal of emphasis on immediate delights –sex, drugs and rock&roll or inner-city gang populations where the future is considered very uncertain, or the death row inmate being told that “smoking is bad for your health.”)
2.
More generally, Epicurus is trying to make morality is simply a sub-set of
prudential rationality; that is, he’s trying to claim that doing the moral
thing is always in your best interest and doing what is in your best interest
is always what is moral. (All egoists
make this claim.) However, this runs
counter to a very strong moral intuition that we have which suggests that
acting morally, at least occasionally, requires that we sacrifice our best
interest for the interest of others. It
seems patently false to claim that being moral is just a matter of doing what
good for oneself.