Hedonism Essay

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.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As you know these words come from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. However, I do have a little problem with the last four words sentence, “the pursuit of Happiness” because I believe it actually sends an easily misinterpreted message.

As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming

The front-end loader project would require that the company would produce small front-end loaders and sell its product to construction companies, farmers and ranchers through retail establishments and to the military and municipal government directly. This is a completely new business venture for the Pleasure Crafts INC. It will draw upon its strengths in small-engine manufacturing. However, to make the final

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 greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

Happiness: a Human Disease -- An Examination of the Allegorical Theme of Existentialism in the Happy Man

Timothy Brook’s book, The Confusions of Pleasure: Commerce and Culture in Ming China is a detailed account of the three centuries of the Ming Dynasty in China. The book allows an opportunity to view this prominent time period of Chinese history. Confusions of Pleasure not only chronicles the economic development during the Ming dynasty, but also the resulting cultural and social changes that transform the gentry and merchant class. Brook’s insights highlight the divide between the Ming dynasty’s idealized beliefs, and the realities of its economic expansion and its effects. Brook describes this gap through the use of several first hand accounts of individuals with various social statuses.

Almost everyone has some kind of leisure time whether it is a couple hours or a couple days. What varies is the type of recreational activities people choose to do during that time. Although leisure and recreation is chosen based on ones unique individual interests, there are many sociocultural factors that influence the type of recreational activities we do, when we do it and how often we do it. These factors include political,

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).

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

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.

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,

Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding hedonistic contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic value to reprimanding