Hedonism: Morality and Q. no.

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.

As humans we have made many choices in our lives, some are quick and easy while others are difficult and takes time. But did we ever wonder if our choices are right or wrong? What is morally right? According to utilitarianism's fundamental principle of morality, the right choice is always the one that maximizes utility, it is the one that brings the most happiness and the least suffering. On paper this looks very good and ideal, because let's face it pretty much everyone wants happiness since it brings them pleasure and no one wants to suffer. However despite that, there have been many objections to this theory, one of which says utilitarianism is too high for humanity in which I disagree, this

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

153). In essence, utilitarianism is maximizing everyone’s happiness, which can almost be considered a universal acceptance (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). Jeremy Bentham is one of the proponents of modern utilitarianism and states, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). In business utilitarianism shares the nonmoral views that the best decision that had no moral conflict would be to maximize profit, which would be the greatest good of the company and its employees (Boylan, 2009, p. 162). Utilitarianism does not always hold true in some minds. Utilitarianism does not take into account motives of the people (Boylan, 2009, p. 165). “If one acts in accord with the general principle and its corollaries, then one is moral” (Boylan, 2009, p. 165).

No form of Utilitarianism addresses the concerns raised about the intrinsic value and human life, it is a simple, easily exploited mask of morality. While the claims are to maximize happiness, with the reasons being that it wants to increase the aggregate happiness in general, the theory promotes with the inverse to eliminate as much unhappiness as possible. Rather than maximizing the good for all involved, one could easily just attempt to a limit the amount of people affected by whatever deed is done, especially if the deed would be considered bad if people knew about it. By keeping the action to a select

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.

Hedonism is the idea that well-being of people comes about through pleasure. Pure hedonism is the thought that it arises through and only through pleasure and both Bentham and Mill advocate different approaches for which hedonism may be the basis of human well-being. Both Philosophers then go on to construct theories of morality on the basis of this idea such that what should be maximised in a moral dilemma is the cumulative welfare of all individuals as measured by their particular approach for deciphering which course of action will yield the most well-being for all. However, the focus of

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

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).

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

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.

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 contrast, utilitarianism is an ethics systems based on pleasure and well-being for all parties involved. This systems recommends making the decision that will bring the greatest amount of well-being to the greatest number of people

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.

Hedonism is described as by Shafer as “life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and is free of pain.” (Landau, 2010, p. 22). While one would say how is GMO affecting a person’s way of life,