Hedonism
Options
The_African
Members Posts: 174 ✭
There are four kinds of hedonism :
Value hedonism is the view that only happiness is intrinsically good (and only distress is intrinsically bad, since stress is the opposite of happiness), that is, it is good in and of itself, for it's own sake. The experience of happiness is good regardless of who has it.
Welfare hedonism is the view that happiness is the only thing that is good for a person but it is not good for it's own sake. Whereas a value hedonist would say that Bob's happiness is a good thing, a welfare hedonist would say that it is only good for Bob but it is not good period or universally.
Ethical hedonism is the view that maximizing happiness and minimizing distress should be the only objectives of ethics. Welfare hedonists tend to be egoists, value hedonists tend to be utilitarians.
Psychological hedonism is the view that sentient beings actually are motivated exclusively by a desire to experience pleasure and avoid stress, regardless of whether or not we 'should' be. We can't not pursue happiness or avoid distress (for example, intentionally burning your hand on a stove because you want to disprove psychological hedonism wouldn't disprove psychological hedonism because the idea of psychological hedonism being true is distressing and the idea of disproving it is pleasurable, so even then you would actually be proving psychological hedonism).
I ascribe to value hedonism. Welfare hedonism seems logical and reasonable but I believe it collapses if you look at it from a materialist point of view. To say that something is good for something other than itself implies that it is only instrumentally good in leading to some greater consequence beyond itself (for example, when people say that spinach is good for you, they mean it is instrumentally good in improving your health but not that it has intrinsic value, the good health that spinach causes is what's intrinsically valuable and spinach is only good to the extent that it affects one's health). Happiness cannot be considered good for a 'person' (ie. 'mind') because a mind is neurological activity, it's not a 'thing' or an 'entity'. Neurons are the entities that experience happiness but I don't see how neurons have any more intrinsic value than red blood cells, plant cells, bacteria etc. do. Neurons are only valuable because they're capable of conscious experience but it's the experiences that are good or bad, not the neurons that have them. Neurons do not have interests that can be furthered or frustrated, it is not good or bad for them to experience happiness or stress, the experience of happiness and stress are good and bad for their own sake.
As for psychological hedonism, I would ascribe to it if I believed that neurons were 'motivated' by anything but I don't. Neurons mindlessly react to stimuli, like everything else in nature
Value hedonism is the view that only happiness is intrinsically good (and only distress is intrinsically bad, since stress is the opposite of happiness), that is, it is good in and of itself, for it's own sake. The experience of happiness is good regardless of who has it.
Welfare hedonism is the view that happiness is the only thing that is good for a person but it is not good for it's own sake. Whereas a value hedonist would say that Bob's happiness is a good thing, a welfare hedonist would say that it is only good for Bob but it is not good period or universally.
Ethical hedonism is the view that maximizing happiness and minimizing distress should be the only objectives of ethics. Welfare hedonists tend to be egoists, value hedonists tend to be utilitarians.
Psychological hedonism is the view that sentient beings actually are motivated exclusively by a desire to experience pleasure and avoid stress, regardless of whether or not we 'should' be. We can't not pursue happiness or avoid distress (for example, intentionally burning your hand on a stove because you want to disprove psychological hedonism wouldn't disprove psychological hedonism because the idea of psychological hedonism being true is distressing and the idea of disproving it is pleasurable, so even then you would actually be proving psychological hedonism).
I ascribe to value hedonism. Welfare hedonism seems logical and reasonable but I believe it collapses if you look at it from a materialist point of view. To say that something is good for something other than itself implies that it is only instrumentally good in leading to some greater consequence beyond itself (for example, when people say that spinach is good for you, they mean it is instrumentally good in improving your health but not that it has intrinsic value, the good health that spinach causes is what's intrinsically valuable and spinach is only good to the extent that it affects one's health). Happiness cannot be considered good for a 'person' (ie. 'mind') because a mind is neurological activity, it's not a 'thing' or an 'entity'. Neurons are the entities that experience happiness but I don't see how neurons have any more intrinsic value than red blood cells, plant cells, bacteria etc. do. Neurons are only valuable because they're capable of conscious experience but it's the experiences that are good or bad, not the neurons that have them. Neurons do not have interests that can be furthered or frustrated, it is not good or bad for them to experience happiness or stress, the experience of happiness and stress are good and bad for their own sake.
As for psychological hedonism, I would ascribe to it if I believed that neurons were 'motivated' by anything but I don't. Neurons mindlessly react to stimuli, like everything else in nature
Comments
-
A mind is a thing and its neurological activity produces an entity, and one with agency as well. Neurons do not experience happiness. That's like saying a single bit experiences the web browser you're running. The brain and nervous system as a conglomerate interprets, analyzes, and even synthesizes the range of expressions of chemistry that we call happiness.
Happiness exists as a motivator for genetic survival. Pleasure especially.
But that doesn't comment on hedonism as a ethical system. I'm gonna go with this: the human is the only thing we know of that became self-aware, so it has astounding potential. Survival of the species as a whole and its continued exploration of itself and the universe should take precedent over any individual's desires. So, hedonism is fine as long as its collective and communal.
On the other hand, everything in existence is certainly going to end, so nihilism is an obstacle to overcome. -
Nice thread regarding hedonism!
I feel it! -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »A mind is a thing and its neurological activity produces an entity, and one with agency as well. Neurons do not experience happiness. That's like saying a single bit experiences the web browser you're running. The brain and nervous system as a conglomerate interprets, analyzes, and even synthesizes the range of expressions of chemistry that we call happiness.
Happiness exists as a motivator for genetic survival. Pleasure especially.
But that doesn't comment on hedonism as a ethical system. I'm gonna go with this: the human is the only thing we know of that became self-aware, so it has astounding potential. Survival of the species as a whole and its continued exploration of itself and the universe should take precedent over any individual's desires. So, hedonism is fine as long as its collective and communal.
On the other hand, everything in existence is certainly going to end, so nihilism is an obstacle to overcome.
No, a mind is not a thing, it's an experience.
As for egoistic hedonism vs. altruistic hedonism, note the difference between value hedonism and welfare hedonism. Survival of the species as a whole has no value because life has no value. Happiness is the end, not a means to something greater. -
I'm not going to argue this semantic ? with you after this post. A mind is in the set of things.The_African wrote: »No, a mind is not a thing, it's an experience.
You are declaring by fiat that life has no value and you are not supporting that assertion, along with happiness being an end and not a means for you.As for egoistic hedonism vs. altruistic hedonism, note the difference between value hedonism and welfare hedonism. Survival of the species as a whole has no value because life has no value. Happiness is the end, not a means to something greater.
You mentioned materialism. From a materialist point of view, let's look at the tangible evidence. The genetic drive to reproduce is lubricated (in more ways than one) by happiness. -
Cosign on what Ktulu said..........
But imo no one could realistically live their life through hedonism unless they had narcissistic personality disorder/some other personality disorder............ -
My problem with hedonism is that it places too much value on the concepts of good and bad...there is no good or bad.
-
oliverlang wrote: »My problem with hedonism is that it places too much value on the concepts of good and bad...there is no good or bad.
Here this ? go.....Why do you all get him started? LOL. You probably would see a starving puppy and be like " His hunger is relative".
And yes there is good and bad. If it is not in harmony with the purpose or function of a thing it is bad. Certain animals and creatures help maintain the balance of creation and when man overruns the boundaries it cause the balance to be upset. Crops won't grow, creatures over proliferate, and plagues and famines come about. ? all the bees and see how bad things become. -
Here this ? go.....Why do you all get him started? LOL. You probably would see a starving puppy and be like " His hunger is relative".
And yes there is good and bad. If it is not in harmony with the purpose or function of a thing it is bad. Certain animals and creatures help maintain the balance of creation and when man overruns the boundaries it cause the balance to be upset. Crops won't grow, creatures over proliferate, and plagues and famines come about. ? all the bees and see how bad things become.
lol...I knew you'd be right behind me with something to say...if there is a lack of harmony, then there is a lack of harmony, but this lack of harmony is not bad or good....it just is. This is another empty human concept...what was good or bad before humans existed? There was/is no good or bad in a natural sense...we don't say, oh storm you are bad for flooding the farmers crops...we don't say, oh blizzard you are bad for bringing the blistering winter...we don't say, oh tiger you are so wrong for eating that rabbit...we don't say, oh sun you are good for shinning so bright today...these things aren't good or bad...they just are...the whole concept of good or bad, right or wrong, has been created by the fickle mind of humans and that concept ultimately changes day to day.
And, for the record, i would do all i could for that starving puppy. lol
It reminds me of the story of the boy and the horse...
_______________________________________________
In this village, a little boy is given a gift of a horse. The villagers all say, "Isn't that fabulous? Isn't that wonderful? What a wonderful gift."
The Zen master says, "We'll see."
A couple years later the boy falls off the horse and breaks his leg. The villagers all say, "Isn't that terrible? The horse is cursed! That's horrible!"
The Zen master says, "We'll see."
A few years later the country goes to war and the government conscripts all the males into the army, but the boy's leg is so screwed up, he doesn't have to go. The villagers all say, "Isn't that fabulous? Isn't that wonderful?"
The Zen master says, "We'll see." -
oliverlang wrote: »My problem with hedonism is that it places too much value on the concepts of good and bad...there is no good or bad.
There is no good or bad from an objective standpoint but perceptually speaking, happiness and distress are intrinsically good and bad experiences. This is why you bother to eat, work, mate, play etc. (or at least why you have the illusion of doing these things because you want and choose to).But imo no one could realistically live their life through hedonism unless they had narcissistic personality disorder/some other personality disorder............
This is beyond frustrating. Go back to the first post and analyze the difference between VALUE HEDONISM and WELFARE HEDONISM. I am not talking about "hedonism" in the layman sense of the word.
Ktulu,
Nature is not a goal oriented system. There is no genetic drive to reproduce. Genes that play a role in reproducing have survived because animals who had those genes were more likely to propagate them than were animals who had genes that made them asexual (although about 1% of humans are asexual) or apathetic to life. There is no 'plan' to it all, it was never supposed to go the way that it did. -
The_African wrote: »There is no good or bad from an objective standpoint but perceptually speaking, happiness and distress are intrinsically good and bad experiences. This is why you bother to eat, work, mate, play etc. (or at least why you have the illusion of wanting to do these things).
Yes, but happiness can cause distress and distress can cause happiness. I don't think the experiences are good or bad either...it's subjective and based on the person's perception...who's to say whose perception of good or bad is right or wrong? -
oliverlang wrote: »Yes, but happiness can cause distress and distress can cause happiness. I don't think the experiences are good or bad either...it's subjective and based on the person's perception...who's to say whose perception of good or bad is right or wrong?
The fact that happiness can cause distress (and vice versa) only means that it can be *instrumentally* bad, but that doesn't negate it's being intrinsically good. The fact that happiness is subjective isn't an argument for it's "meaninglessness". The subject who experiences happiness and distress is the one to say that it is right and wrong and subjects do universally approve and disapprove of happiness and stress. The fact that some people have a positive attitude towards stress and a negative attitude towards happiness proves nothing, it only means that the *idea* of happiness can be distressing and the *idea* of stress can be pleasurable. We're also capable of mixed emotions. -
The_African wrote: »The fact that happiness can cause distress (and vice versa) only means that it can be *instrumentally* bad, but that doesn't negate it's being intrinsically good. The fact that happiness is subjective isn't an argument for it's "meaninglessness". The subject who experiences happiness and distress is the one to say that it is right and wrong and subjects do universally approve and disapprove of happiness and stress. The fact that some people have a positive attitude towards stress and a negative attitude towards happiness proves nothing, it only means that the *idea* of happiness can be distressing and the *idea* of stress can be pleasurable. We're also capable of mixed emotions.
But there is no true value in what the subject says. The same instrument that creates happiness now, could create sorrow in five minutes from now, and then in ten minutes create happiness again (especially if there is an attachment to it)...it's not that it's good, or that it's bad...because if it is truly good or bad it will be universal...and there is no universal good or bad because there is no REAL good or bad, it's only an idea/concept...things just exist as they are and we assign what is good or bad based on our personal perception of things...if you remove that perception..then things just are…neither good or bad. -
The_African wrote: »perceptually speaking, happiness and distress are intrinsically good and bad
contradictory
I agree.Ktulu,
Nature is not a goal oriented system.
I completely disagree, LOL.There is no genetic drive to reproduce.
No ? .Genes that play a role in reproducing have survived
And now, they demand to be reproduced. It's not a plan. It's just happening. -
oliverlang wrote: »But there is no true value in what the subject says. The same instrument that creates happiness now, could create sorrow in five minutes from now, and then in ten minutes create happiness again (especially if there is an attachment to it)...it's not that it's good, or that it's bad...because if it is truly good or bad it will be universal...and there is no universal good or bad because there is no REAL good or bad, it's only an idea/concept...things just exist as they are and we assign what is good or bad based on our personal perception of things...if you remove that perception..then things just are…neither good or bad.
Oliver, old chap, you are slipping.
bolded : the things that cause happiness have no intrinsic value, they are only.. *drum roll*.. instrumentally valuable in increasing happiness. If eating an apple causes pleasure, the apple is instrumentally good in increasing pleasure, if eating an apple causes distress then it is instrumentally bad in causing distress. Eating an apple, in and of itself, is neither good or bad.
underlined :you're repeating the same argument without actually defending it. You don't have to tell me that happiness and stress have no value from an objective point of view because I've already admitted this, 'value' is an emotive concept. The idea of objective value is hocus pocus which is exactly why I'm a hedonist, because non-experiential value is objective value. Happiness and stress are subjective experiences so whether or not they have objective value is of no relevance. There's a big difference between saying that something is of universal value and saying that it is of objective value. From an objective stand point, happiness and stress don't even exist. Would you like to seriously deny that they exist as subjective experiences?
Ktulu,
Saying that something is intrinsically good is saying that it is good for it's own sake or in and of itself. There is no contradiction between saying that happiness is subjectively good and saying that it's subjectively good for it's own sake. None whatsoever. Neurons have no value, serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin etc. have no value, it's the processing of neurochemical information that has intrinsic value or dis-value.
There is no desirable end beyond happiness. There is no purpose to life but happiness is the only thing that makes it worth living, at least from our subjective point of view. It doesn't matter, in and of itself, whether or not humans reproduce. -
The_African wrote: »Oliver, old chap, you are slipping.
bolded : the things that cause happiness have no intrinsic value, they are only.. *drum roll*.. instrumentally valuable in increasing happiness. If eating an apple causes pleasure, the apple is instrumentally good in increasing pleasure, if eating an apple causes distress then it is instrumentally bad in causing distress. Eating an apple, in and of itself, is neither good or bad.
underlined :you're repeating the same argument without actually defending it. You don't have to tell me that happiness and stress have no value from an objective point of view because I've already admitted this, 'value' is an emotive concept. The idea of objective value is hocus pocus which is exactly why I'm a hedonist, because non-experiential value is objective value. Happiness and stress are subjective experiences so whether or not they have objective value is of no relevance. There's a big difference between saying that something is of universal value and saying that it is of objective value. From an objective stand point, happiness and stress don't even exist. Would you like to seriously deny that they exist as subjective experiences?
lol...i can see we are going to go in circles with this...but i do want to ask you a question...what was good or bad before humans existed? Was there good and bad? -
Why are you conflating subjectivity and intrinsic value?The_African wrote: »Saying that something is intrinsically good is saying that it is good for it's own sake or in and of itself. There is no contradiction between saying that happiness is subjectively good and saying that it's subjectively good for it's own sake. None whatsoever.
You are declaring this by fiat for no reason. The structures and chemicals you listed must have value if you are saying their product has value.Neurons have no value, serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin etc. have no value, it's the processing of neurochemical information that has intrinsic value or dis-value.
Pretty heavy unsupported assertion, bro.There is no desirable end beyond happiness.
If humans don't reproduce, there will be no humans to experience happiness or anything else.There is no purpose to life but happiness is the only thing that makes it worth living, at least from our subjective point of view. It doesn't matter, in and of itself, whether or not humans reproduce. -
Why are you conflating subjectivity and intrinsic value?
Value is subjective.You are declaring this by fiat for no reason. The structures and chemicals you listed must have value if you are saying their product has value.
If running is a good thing, legs are only good to the extent that they allow someone to run. The legs by themselves aren't good, it's the activity they perform that's good. Consciousness is a process, not a thing.Pretty heavy unsupported assertion, bro.
If you are a materialist, you have to reject the idea of objective value. Non-experiential value is objective value. Nothing would matter in a universe without sentient beings because nobody could be emotionally affected by anything.If humans don't reproduce, there will be no humans to experience happiness or anything else.
So reproducing is good to that extent and that extent alone (although I'm an anti-natalist because I think that happiness and stress are asymmetrical in value, that's another topic).
lol...i can see we are going to go in circles with this...but i do want to ask you a question...what was good or bad before humans existed? Was there good and bad?
Eventually, every sun in the universe will burn out and every atom will decay. When sentient life comes to an end, there will be nothing good or bad in the universe, as there was nothing good or bad before sentient life evolved. A universe with no happiness or suffering will be of neutral value.
