Hedonism: Harmless Indoctrination or Something Sinister?
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines Hedonism as, “The belief that pleasure or happiness is the most important goal in life,” which may be true depending on one’s viewpoint. After all, life will be dreary without happiness or some form of pleasure or excitement. Another qualifying reason for Hedonism is its prolonged existence. Hedonism – like other belief systems, has been in existence since ancient times; it’s even older than Christianity. Aristippus of Cyrene (a disciple of Socrates) was the first great exponent of Hedonism. He was also the founder of the Cyrenaic School of Hedonism that taught the individual person to perform acts that generates pleasure (Herbermann et al. p. 187).
…show more content…
In his article “Christian Worldview Development,” Hans M. Weerstra describes Hedonism as the “doctrine that pleasure is the sole or chief good in life and that moral duty is fulfilled in the gratification of pleasure-seeking instincts and dispositions” (Weerstra, P. 53). In other words, anything that produces pleasure to an individual is considered the ultimate good. The problem with this premise is the lack of sound logic and objectivity. In today’s society, what one may consider as pleasurable might cross the line of some legal, moral, and ethical parameters. For example, if one finds pleasure in being a serial killer, how can this be considered the ultimate good? What about serial rapists, child molesters, cannibalism, and things of that nature? Hedonism cannot condemn any of these actions if the individual finds pleasure in them. Therefore, this philosophy is not as harmless as it may seem on the outset. In fact, it is more self-destructive in nature. For example, if an individual finds pleasure in bad habits such as abusing alcohol, drugs, and smoking – all of which is considered dangerous to one’s health, how can this be consider the ultimate good? It cannot, which renders this philosophy as self-destructive. Weerstra says it best when he stated, “Hedonism like nihilism rest upon the secularized worldview that no objective truth and standard of ethics exists” (53). …show more content…
However, it is no surprise because Paul the Apostle in the Book of Timothy already foretold it. Paul states that in the last days, “… men will become lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:4). This is why churches continue to mix the sacred with the secular (profane). Churches put more emphasis in programing instead of the sermon and many are flocking to these event filled churches. They also go as far as inviting secular artists to perform in their churches – all for the sake of entertainment or as its called by the church, “reaching the world through unconventional methods [being relevant].” Weerstra said it best when he stated, “ The modern day systems of thought are truly enemies of the Gospel, having a radically different view of reality, and as such have the potential to destroy Christian faith and life at its foundations” (Weerstra, P.
Hedonism basically is how people chose pleasures over pain; pleasures are the thing that drives them in life. Aristippus’ view showed that pleasures and/or the good life were the end rather than happiness. He felt strongly that pleasures are often chased after by all people, whereas pain is often avoided. He also states that physical pleasures are valued more than intellectual pleasures because physical pleasures require more units of pleasure. Aristippus believed that people should go after the pleasures that are immediate as opposed to those that come over time.
Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.
However, I am not convinced that this example on its own proves hedonism false. Perhaps the idea very idea of connecting to a machine and losing contact to reality is in itself painful to us, as it presents us with an existential crisis, and so we choose not to connect to avoid the painful thoughts associated with having one’s mind controlled by a machine. Perhaps, there is a third category of pleasures that could be called “meta-pleasures” that are the pleasures that come from knowing that we are in touch with reality and that what we are doing is having a real effect. Much like personal safety, meta-pleasure is only tangible when it is threatened. We are not able to be aware of or “feel” our safety, we become aware of it only when it is threatened by something else, as is the case with meta-pleasure. We only become aware of meta-pleasure when something like an experience machine threatens our notion of the reality we are experiencing and suggests that our minds could be completely controlled by a machine. If meta-pleasure is something that is real, then the experience machine thought experiment would only further prove hedonism because it shows that we will desire things which are pleasurable and avoid those that are painful.
In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).
The hedonist would argue that pleasure is the only intrinsic good in life, that joy and suffering are the only distinguishing marks of things beneficial or harmful to the human being. To the hedonist, life is like the common balance scale with suffering on one side and pleasure on the other. With pleasure being inversely related to suffering, in order to maximize the good of life, the hedonist strives to minimize suffering, thereby maximizing net pleasure (pleasure minus suffering).
Hedonists believe that there is only one intrinsically good value, which is pleasure. Anything that leads to pleasure is good for humans and ought to be sought. However, Ross disagrees with the fact that there is only one intrinsically good thing and instead argues that there are four intrinsically good things, which describe different situations where a thing can be intrinsically good and how they can overlap and interfere with one another. Ross does not believe in the monistic theory of value but in a pluralistic theory of value focusing on these four points.
According to hedonism, pleasure is the most important good and the ultimate goal in life. Epicurus states that pleasure is in intrinsic good. Mill agrees with him, but along with Kazez, says that happiness is also an elemental good. In Epicurus’ theory, he defines pleasure as the absence of pain. Mill also uses this definition, but applies it to happiness as well. Therefore, we can agree on a definition for the two terms that makes sense: happiness and pleasure are both the absence of pain. According to Mill, happiness and pleasure are correlated. He says that happiness is the existence of pleasure. This is what drives all of our actions and desires. We desire things because it will bring us pleasure in some way and we avoid things because
The desire satisfaction theory accommodates the thought which hedonism does not accommodate. According to the desire satisfaction theory, our lives go better when the world actually is a certain way, and doesn’t merely appear to be a certain way. An individual experiences pleasure when the desires are satisfied but it is not a guarantee that the desires cause pleasure.
The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.
This however fundamentally goes against Utilitarianism, which states that humans are merely motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This is how an action is considered good or bad in the Hedonic Calculus, if it brings pleasure for the most people or works to avoid pain. Furthermore, Christian ethics implies that one will find happiness by modelling themselves on Jesus and adhering to the teachings of the Bible. However, in Utilitarianism it is stated that one will find the most happiness when individuals are free to pursue their own ends.
The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).
Another important thing to examine carefully are moral choices. If moral choices are not examined, people will choose only what benefits them in the short term and not follow hedonism. Hedonism is a doctrine that states that pleasure is the only intrinsic good in humans and it is our moral obligation to strive to reduce pain and increase pleasure in themselves and others. 3 A student who slacks off on their homework may benefit in the short term by having free time to do as they please, but are putting their long term interests at risk. The student has not thought about how their lack of effort will affect their grades and whether or not they will have enough marks to get into a university or college.
Bentham promotes ethical hedonism in some of his writings. Ethical hedonism can be stated as: that action is right which promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However, Bentham believes that the world seems in reality to mostly composed of people more closely aligned with psychological egoistic hedonism, which believes that which is right is that which brings the most happiness to the self. Clearly,
self-preservatory behavior in principle. What does this leave me with? A hedonist, who cares not for his hedonism nor his redemption.
Hedonism is the “pursuit of pleasure as a matter of ethical principle” (Dictionary.com). In Oscar Wilde’s, the Picture of Dorian Gray, the story revolves around a young lad named, Dorian Gray. Throughout the story, three recurring characters appear which are Basil, Dorian, and Lord Henry. The three begin a discourse on philosophy whilst Basil refutes Lord Henry’s hedonistic philosophies. Gray damns the picture, stating that whatever ailments of age may affect him may be put onto the picture. Basil pleads Dorian not to be influenced by the figure Lord Henry, yet Dorian is so infatuated by his ideals that he cannot resist the temptation. Later on, Gray begins to act more and more selfishly, committing many atrocities such as, leading young men away from diligence, slaining an actress, and murdering the artist of the picture, Basil. Guilt consumes Gray as his actions alter the picture into a horror. Planning to end it all, Gray gives the picture one last stab, unknowingly reversing the curse the picture held and unleashing his own knife upon himself. In Wilde’s, the Picture of Dorian Gray, hedonism is an attribute that inevitably precipitates consequence and is proved through literary devices, epigrams, and themes to ultimately discourage the audience from succumbing to fleshly desire.