Hedonism vs. Desire Satisfaction Theory

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

Gratification comes from any even that engages us fully. Seligman claims that “…individuals may find gratification in participating in a great conversation, fixing a bike, reading a good book…or accomplishing a difficult task at work.” (Seligman, Parks, and Steen 419) Senior also states that “doing something that engages or enhances our strengths is a gratification, whether it’s swimming, welding, or listening to a friend in need.” (Senior 428) It is interesting to note that engagement activities aimed at increasing happiness are not always enjoyable in and of themselves. Seligman notes that “consider, for example, the gratification that comes from training for an endurance even such as a marathon. At any given point during the grueling event, a runner may be discouraged or exhausted or even in physical pain; however, they may describe the overall experience as intensely gratifying.” (Seligman, Parks, and Steen 419) From this we see that gratification may help enhance our overall happiness, not through the activity itself, but from the feeling of accomplishment or well-being we experience as the end result.

Intrinsic happiness is what individuals should be striving towards and that’s a major point because in all the three pieces of work that’s being compared, a common moral theme is being shared; intrinsic happiness and motivation should instead be the guide in which individuals should follow to gain more happiness in their search for a reward. An example is in how “How not to get into college”, students should find a more effective way of studying which does not always revolve around getting a specific grade. They should instead focus on building on relevant skills which are important in the workforce like; communication, leadership, time management, organizational, computer, and professional. In comparison, [Still have to add

There are certain things that are in the control of the humans, at the same time there are several things, which are not under the human’s control. Thus, to persist a happy life, the humans are required to put an end their desire such that the satisfaction of

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.

Why should people be able to postpone their desire? Desire is a sense of hoping for something. Scientists have discovered that if people could control their inner desire, they would be more likely to have self-discipline, higher SAT scores and are more successful. Delayed gratification is a person’s ability to control his/her desire for something for a period of time.

For this purpose, I will use the definition established by Nozick- pleasure as a feeling that is desired because of its felt qualities (Mullnix, 2015). This explanation is meaningful since it makes no presumptions on what is pleasurable- a masochist, for instance, desires the feeling of pain. Despite the general custom of seeing pain as something inherently displeasurable, it is respectively satisfying in this case because the qualities felt whilst experiencing pain are desirable to a masochist, therefore pain is a pleasure. (Degrees of clarity, 2016) In this manner, pleasure is something purely subjective. By settling this, hedonistic utilitarianism can now be defined with its basic principle residing in the concept of

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.

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,

Freud proposes the Principle of Satisfaction when aiming to be happy, in other words "a problem of satisfying a person's instinctual wishes (Freud 263)." Consequently, he concludes that because our "appetite" can never be fulfilled, the attainment of happiness will be nothing else than pessimistic. Also, he notes, that not all pleasures or wishes can be satisfied as soon as they are conceived. Freud presents the example of a baby, who, initially, believes that all his/her wishes should be gratified, and only later learns, form the Reality Principle, the harsh truth, that the wishes can not be satisfied instantaneously. More than that, life teaches men that in order to experience happiness one must sacrifice the instant gratification of his/her desires in order to achieve happiness in future. A simple example would be when a businessman decides to work overtime in order to receive more money and, thus, receive more pleasure, of course temporary and in future.

Experientialism and the Desire Theory are not totally in conflict with what Mill writes about well-being. In fact there are certain times when Mill's adherence to the Substantive Goods Theory is put into doubt because of cewrtain ideas of the former two which support what Mill says. Despite such similarties, the Substantive Goods Theory manifests itself as a better fit for what Mill says about well-being and how society should encourage people to pursue well-being. Additionally, that theory is consistent with my personal beliefs about what it means to lead a good life.