Reaction Paper On Hedonism

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.

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).

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

In her book Meaning in Life and Why it Matters, Susan Wolf does not focus on this perennial question people have been asking over the vast confusion of human history rather she gazes her view at the question of how people seek and maintain meaningful lives. Seeking of meaningful life poses the question of motives that has driven us to engage in. Wolf judges the answer from philosophical point of view. Utilitarianism, a paradigm of teleological theory, accepts pleasure as the ultimate meaning of life. J. S. Mill argues, ‘pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that are desirable as ends, and that everything that is desirable at all is so either for the pleasure inherent in it or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain’ [1863:10] Man demands and pursues the supreme good which comprises both virtue and happiness. Mill’s uses of the term pleasure confined it only in this physical world. Kant, on the other hand, uses it even after death. Virtue and pleasure, duty and inclination, are, according to Kant, heterogeneous notions. Their unity cannot be achieved within the narrow span of our life in this world. We, therefore, conceive immortal life for us. Hence, we seek pleasure not only in this material world, but also in the super sensible world as it is

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.

Hedonism and the desire-satisfaction theory of welfare are typically seen as archrivals in the contest over identifying what makes one’s life better. It is surprising, then, that the most plausible form of hedonism is desire satisfactionism. The hedonism theory focuses on pleasure/happiness while the desire-satisfaction theory elucidates the relevance of fulfilling our desires. Pleasure, in some points of view is the subjective satisfaction of desire. I will explain the similarities and the differences between the desire-satisfaction theory of value and hedonism. I will also discuss the most successful theory and defend my argument by explaining how the theory

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

“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

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.

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.

Many so-called philosophies largely steal from the beliefs of early Greek Philosophers. Commencing around 600 BC, in Greece, Hedonism and created by the Greek philosopher Cārvāka. Hedonism supremely values pleasure as the ultimate good and seeks to avoid or lessen pain (Heathwood). Essentially, Hedonists seek to avoid pain as well as possible while adding up large sums of pleasures in their lives. The supposed morals of a hedonist are solely based on the fact of whether or not an act endows pleasure. Oscar Wilde expressed his support of these tendencies through saying that he