Hedonism is the view that pleasure/happiness is the only intrinsic good. This means that the only thing that is good "in-and-of-itself" is pleasure/happiness. Other things might be instrumentally valuable--that is, valuable as instruments or tools to get other things. Examples of instrumentally valuable things include money and cars. Money is good for buying things that one wants and cars are good for traveling from one place to another. But they don't have intrinsic value. It's not as if money is good for its own sake. It's only good in order to acquire goods/services.
I'm curious what you think about Hedonism. Is there anything else that is intrinsically valuable besides pleasure/happiness?
It's worth mentioning that some things might be both intrinsically valuable and instrumentally valuable [e.g., one's health or the beauty of a piece of art (?)]. My intuitions about these examples aren't clear. Are there examples that you find puzzling? Perhaps a discussion of the puzzling cases will shed some light on the debate over whether Hedonism is true or false.
31 comments:
Hedonism is a very interesting topic. I am usually a very happy person, so I believe in utilitariansm because I tend to do things that will make me happy, or that will make others happy, which is turn brings joy to me. I believe happiness is the only intrinsic value because it is a fair way to measure morality, as long as you are determining the happiness of the whole society affected by your decision. Obviously we will not all agree otherwise there would be world peace. Happiness is an emotion, whihc is helped by instruments but it is indeed good of itself.
Nicki- Thanks for commenting. I don't follow your argument/reasoning. You say that you think Hedonism is true because "it is a fair way to measure morality." But that doesn't support truth of the view. In fact, all you're really saying is that you believe (a) that Hedonism is true and (b)that Hedonism is a good way to think about morality. I don't see how (b) lends support to (a).
I would say that Hedonism is true. When trying to analyize why I choose to make the decisions I make, I always end up with the same ending. I did it because it made me happy. Although one thing did come to mind and I am not sure if this would then make my about statement false. I am a religious person and I feel that this plays the greatest role in my decisions. I choose to act a certain way based on my beliefs and I my religion say is the correct way to respond. (However, there are not alway black and white answers for every question,which could lead people to act differently in some situations.) When I look at my reasons based on religion, I still feel that in the end, when I make the right decision based on what religion says is correct, I still feel happy/pleasure. So does that still support Hedonism?
Audrey Wenger
To expand on the religious topic, I feel as though religion has intrinsic value, as well as instrumental value. Although hedonism seems to be plausible to me, I question if it is false because of the fact that I feel that religion has intrinsic value, which goes against the idea of hedonism. So as far as to question whether or not hedonism is true or false, without further knowledge (which I hope to obtain),and an in depth look and analysis of these "puzzling examples" such as religion, it is too early for me to draw my conclusion and form my opinion of hedonism.
Joseph Burns
I believe for the most part Hedonism is true. For the most part if someone was going to make a decision it would come down to happiness. For example, if I wanted to go to the movies and bought my ticket and my friends, it would be a good decision because the movie would make us both happy. This works great for generally any simple decision but when more complex and hard to solve decisions need to be made I don't believe Hedonism is always true. For example, if my friend does't like movies and I buy the ticket they will not be happy but might still go because it is their duty as my friend. Hedonism can be true or false depending on the situation but for most daily decisions I believe Hedonism is true.
Torrey Johnson
Thanks for commenting everyone!
There's something that I need to make clear. Hedonism is a theory of moral value. It's not a theory about psychology. What I mean by this is that it's not a theory that has to do with what you WOULD DO or WHY you would do it. Rather, it's a theory about what is valuable in a moral sense--more precisely, what is intrinsically (as opposed to instrumentally) valuable. Given this, the comments thus far aren't really addressing the theory in question. You're all discussing human psychology or explanations of human behavior.
Hedonism has a lot of truth in it. Most if not all of our daily decisions are made from it by one trying to obtain his or her happiness. Simple choices are where it occurs the most as in i want that type of sandwich. Choosing that sandwich is something you wanted so now your happy. I question though is it true or even as apparent in more in-depth question or more complex questions. For example vacations or what kind of car, someone that is involved with the choice might not go along with it so there is not a maximum amount of happiness across the board. For the most part of our daily life choice are based off this but as it an be shown it might not be prevalent in every situation.
Christopher Salerno
I believe that hedonism is not true for every moral situation. For example if a person commits murder on an elderly person with no family and causes no pain to anyone as no one liked the ederly person I still morally believe that the killer should be put to death. But if when I consider what utilitarian's say what if the killer has a lot of family who will be hurt very much if that person is put to death that does not mean they should be granted to keep their life. I think that in many situation hedonism is true and a pain vs pleasure scale can be used. I do not believe it can be used in every situation. When I thought about this topic the first thing that came to my mind was a person's health. Like lets consider doctor assisted suicide. When we consider a pain vs pleasure scale the person who is suffereing would be happier in a sense to end their suffereing but the family of that person will be very sad so does that make it morally wrong? Many people believe physician assisted sucide should be legal.
Hedonism, to me, doesn’t seem as far-fetched like some of the other moral theories I’ve learned about up to this point. I think that it makes a solid case on moral theory and is hard to debunk because you can relate almost any situation back to happiness. But, when thinking about the core of intrinsic values, although I feel that happiness/pleasure is definitely a contributor, I find it hard to believe it’s the only good thing. I think things like good health that was mentioned in the blog and safety also have some intrinsic value. In the case of good personal health I would argue that happiness is definitely instrumentally valuable.
Hedonism, as a personal moral value seems very plausible to me. Obviously not every decision you make will bring happiness to yourself, but it should bring happiness to someone. I'm sure there have been many times that each of us have done something that does not make us directly happy, but the fact that we did it makes someone else happy should bring us happiness. Whether it is the only intrinsic value would be tough to argue, but I think it should be the major factor.
Hedonism: the only thing that matters are pleasure and happiness. With this definition I definitely think that when everything is boiled down, that this is the reason people decide to do the things that they do. I myself usually do things that are going to make myself happy or others happy. I mean who wouldn’t and doesn’t want to be happy? So I would definitely have to say that I agree with hedonism.
However, I do find myself getting confused over certain topics of hedonism. Like what exactly is considered pleasure and happiness? What if someone is finding happiness from using heroin? Does this still make it intrinsically valuable because they are deriving pleasure from using the drug? This also brings up another question which is, are all pleasures even good? Does that question change the idea of what is intrinsically valuable or do we just consider all pleasures, whether they are good or bad, to be correct?
A bit of clarification (and I tried to stress this in class today)--Hedonism is the view that the only thing that is INTRINSICALLY GOOD is happiness/pleasure. It's not a theory of psychology. Rather it's a MORAL PRINCIPLE having to do with what is VALUABLE in a moral sense.
What Michael says isn't incompatible with this (and he makes some interesting points about Hedonism), but I just want to make sure that we're all using the term in the same way.
With that said, I would have to say that I think hedonism is true. Every topic always seems to eventually come down to the question of, "will it make people happy?" Whether it is good health, having a lot of money, etc... It's like in the example from class about a child that just keeps asking "why?". Eventually, it just seems like that chain of "why?" questions can always be brought back to "because it bring happiness to you or someone else."
I feel that Hedonism is true. If there was a child who was about to drown the lifeguard wasn't around, and I was the only one nearby, I'd feel like an asshole for not saving that child. If I didn't save him, the child would be dead, his family would go through a great deal of grief, I'd feel like shit, the lifeguard would feel like shit because he wasn't there, etc. I don't think any happiness would come out of that situation. If I did save him, the kid would be happy to be alive, his family would be happy I'd be happy, the lifeguard, etc. And like the train situation discussed in class, where no matter what decision you make people will die, it's all about making the decision where the least amount of sadness will come out of it.
I think happiness/pleasure is what everyone strives for in life. Obviously some people have a twisted way of gaining happiness (killers, rapists), but the idea is still there. And your actions could be made for the sake of giving pleasure/happiness to others. I just don't see why else we do the things we do. It's always to please ourselves or others.
I believe that Hedonism is true. I also believe that pleasure and happiness are the only intrinsic goods. People go through life striving to be happy with whatever path they chose to follow. People should do whatever makes them or others happy, but not to the extent or hurting others physically or emotionally, that is selfishness. Unless there was an argument or legit reason behind the harm. I do things for others to make them happy, which therefore makes me happy as well, and in hope that they return the favor. Its sort of like, "treat others the way you would like to be treated." Everyone should follow this and if they did, most people would be happy in the world today.
After looking a little deeper into the idea of hedonism, and looking at the other theories we discussed in class, I must say my attitude toward hedonism has changed. I do not see how this method could be effective in all situations. To yield the highest level of net happiness seems to be impossible. Take for example money, religion, family, drugs, life, and death; people’s values on these things differ so a major flaw within the idea of hedonism is that happiness cannot be consistently and accurately quantified by all individuals. Murder for example, may be morally permissible according to ones values, culture, etc., but may be immoral by another’s, which seems like relativism, where all things are relative, and dependent on ones beliefs, values, etc. Although hedonism may lead to moral answers occasionally, it can’t hold true at all times. In the case of deciding morality based on hedonism, one can only estimate, predict, or guess at the numerical data needed to make the decision, which could prove to be inaccurate after the event has taken place. As an objectivist, I believe there are moral truths and clearly hedonism doesn’t always hold to be true, along with many other philosophical theories.
Joe Burns
If hedonism is based on what is morally correct, who determines what gives each person pleasure? As an example: what about the people who have commited suicide because they have looked at their lives and felt that there was no value to it anymore especially those that are dying of cancer. Do the rest of us look at that and feel that it is the right way to handle the situation. Did this person get pleasure from this,do they feel that this way they are no longer a burden to others so that their loved ones can continue to live happy lives. No, because most of us see it as morally wrong!I consider taking your own life as a sin. So I dont agree with Hedonism because we all have different views on happiness.
I disagree abd say that Hedonism is not always true as well. There are other ideas that are also in and of themselves intrinsically good called love and hope. Happiness isn't the only intrinsic good. If someone is ill with cancer, families are bonded even closer with the possibility that hoping their ill family member would get better with medical help they are brought together in a bond of love. Love makes others happy yes, but love is also another intrinsic good, which would make hedonism false.
I have a hard time believing that Hedonism holds true all the time. The idea that if you do something to make yourself, but more importantly the majority, happy doesn't always mean your choice is moral. Let's say you're a drug dealer. You're making money, you can buy things for yourself, and you're serving others, which makes you happy. Others that are purchasing drugs from you are also happy for the services that you are providing to them. According to Hedonism, what you are doing is a moral action because all that matters is "intrinsic good" (happiness/pleasure), and I don't agree with that. In some cases, Hedonism may very well be plausible as a moral principle, but it's hard to say it holds true for morality consistently. This could also suggest that maybe happiness/pleasure is not the only intrinsic good.
Kayla-Thanks for commenting. I don't find your drug dealer case very convincing. If we're careful in our calculation, I think we'll see that dealing drugs is not conducive to overall pleasure. The negative consequences to the dealer, to the drug-users, to the community, etc. are all taken into account. So even though one might get pleasure from making money off of selling drugs and pleasure might be derived from using drugs, the negative consequences seem fairly serious and rather varied. Because of all this, I think your analysis of the case is mistaken. Indeed, it appears that the Utilitarian gets the right answer regarding this case.
Sherry-You mentioned love and hope as examples of things that are intrinsically valuable in addition to pleasure. Why is hope something that is intrinsically valuable? Why is love? A Hedonist would surely insist that such things are only valuable in so far as they produce happiness/pleasure. I love my wife and this is a good thing about our relationship--but, says the Hedonist, it's only good because it makes the experiences we share more pleasurable. If I didn't love her, then our relationship wouldn't be as pleasurable. So you need more of an explanation as to why these other things matter and, more importantly, why they have INTRINSIC value and not just instrumental value.
Dr. Steinberg,
I say that love and hope are intrinsic in themselves because
we can help or hope for someone for love or hopes sake.
That would not be just to make the other person happy, but to spread more love and hope. For something to be moral, there must also be something called empathy--where you feel for someone because you have love for the overall greater good. Just because you get pleasure out of something doesn't mean that pleasure stands alone. You must love to do it for there to be pleasure involved. So when stated like this, in my opinion, those people who have a hedonistic view of things would be false. When you show interest in someone out of empathy or love, you're not showing it to gain money or some other instrumental value, but only for the sake of empathy or love which would rule out love and hope as having instrumental value. So therefore, it would make those ideas intrinsic and therefore good in and of themselves which would make hedonism false.
I believe that happiness is the highest value in a moral sense, therefore, I believe that hedonism is true. Everyone wants to be happy in life so they do things that'll make them happy. I personally love being happy and making others happy with the actions I choose. Although not every action makes both you and the other person happy, you still want to make someone happy because that is an intrinsic good to make someone happy.
Everything comes down to the pleasure principle. Everything we do is to gain pleasure. Even people who seek pain, get pleasure from that pain. (sick but true) Let's take some of the examples that are on this page as being "puzzling" such as health or beauty. First why do you want or strive to be healthy?? To feel good to live longer to see more things and do more of the things that make us.....HAPPY! or pleased. Why do you look at a piece of art? Even if it is a sad theme like a picture of a Civil War battle field you can still appreciate that art in a twisted way you could feel pleasure to know that this horror is very unlikely to happen here in the US again. Money and wealth are directly connected to providing the things that make you happy and just because you have more does not mean you are happier. I have had times where I had more money than I knew what to do with and I have had times where I was barely making it. i.e. rice and peppers for daily food, sleeping/crashing with friends or on the beach during the day up all night and it was possible the most liberating enjoyable time in my life and I had a back pack with a bar of soap and a pair of shorts two swim suits and 2 shirts..period. I think FREEDOM is the only thing that could compete with pleasure but then again freedom makes you happy?? What does anyone else think?
Heather Costello
Erica--so you're saying that happiness is the only intrinsic good? Take a look at what I stated above your comment. Happiness isn't everything. There are also other intrinsic goods like hope, love, courage, faith, and empathy when you feel for someone and take a look at their life from within their shoes. After reading this--does any of this change your mind about hedonism?
Heather--I'm not so sure health and beauty are concrete enough for me. Think about it this way? What do you think about the concepts of hope, faith, love,
courage, and empathy? Do you think
empathy is for it's own sake or are people making monetary gain from it? The same about hope, love and faith. Do you think people make money from their faith?
I'm not talking about pastors who
consider it a job--but the people that show up to church just to hear what the pastor has to say. They're not gaining anything tangible by what they believe.
They believe what they believe because of love or a hope that they will go to heaven. Intrinsic goods mean that in and of themselves they are valuable extrinsic goods mean they have instrumental value--meaning they bring in some sort of capital like money or material possesions. Love, hope, faith, courage and empathy do not bring in monetary gain, so therefore are intrinsic--which would make hedonism false.
I even think bravery could probably
be considered. Some people who are very moral fighting for other people's freedoms--have to be brave enough to fight for what they believe in and brave enough
to defend others who can't defend
themselves.
Is a reason to do something because it makes you happy or gives you pleasure always good? For example, someone smokes because it makes them happy, but smoking is bad for your health. Therefore is happiness really an intrinsic good?
Also, do we truly understand what happiness is? I am not saying do you know the definition according to the dictionary, but I am asking do we really know and understand what happiness is. If we cannot honestly define this term, then we may be acting in an immoral way. For example, say a person decides to see a movie in order to make their significant other happy, even though they feel it won’t make them happy. Then it turns out that that person found out that the movie actually made them happy; then maybe that person does not have a complete understanding of happiness. Without a true understanding, we should then not use this theory as a solid baseline for making decisions, but simply use this as one of many tools, to help us make the morally correct decision.
I believe that hedonism can be considered true and by looking at the previous comments, I do not believe that hedonism is a way to find out what is moral. The theory is to explain what we strive for as humans in our lives. It is not telling us what we should do morally. I believe that happiness is the only intrinsic good because what else do we strive for as humans? Others have mentioned things like love, hope and beauty but these emotions can be traced back to happiness. We love and hope because it brings us happiness. I feel that happiness is the foundation of everything that we strive for when we are living our life and making decisions.
Yes--but then the argument is Alyssa-- happiness is not only the intrinsic good out there--because the memory of happiness and expressions of it would also be considered intrinsic. Say someone gives you a rose--out of 'love' and you dry that rose and put it in a memory book because you want to remember their love--and then they get old and die. You still have that dried rose as a memory of their affection or love for you. And showing that affection by giving you a rose makes them happy. That display of affection is called love. Memory and expressions of happiness like love and affection are also intrinsic in its own right--if happiness is also good--so therefore--when you look at it this way--hedonism is false.
As our passions move us with the same ease and facility as our desires and appetites, hedonism is, at least in part, a psychological claim on ethics. Pride/shame, pity/envy, hope/fear, fun/boredom fix on the condition of oneself; love/hate, joy/sorrow, conscience/guilt on the condition of other(s). In other words, happy, sympathetic and self-consumed is in no way inconsistent with hedonism/utility.
Would unhappy, compassionate, and concerned for others be somehow less nobler in the mind?
Post a Comment