Hedonism
hedonism (from the Greek ἡδονή hēdonḗ 'pleasure' and -ism) refers to a family of theories, all of which have in common that pleasure plays a central role in them. Psychological hedonism or motivational hedonism affirms that our behavior is determined by desires to increase pleasure and decrease pain. The normative hedonism or ethical, on the other hand, is not about how we really act, but how we should act: we should pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Axiological hedonism, which sometimes is treated as a part of ethical hedonism, it is the thesis that only pleasure has intrinsic value. Applied to well-being or what is good for someone, it is the thesis that pleasure and suffering are the only components of well-being. quotidian, sometimes referred to as "popular hedonism". In this sense, it has a negative connotation, linked to the selfish search for short-term gratification, indulging in sensory pleasures without taking into account their repercussions.
The nature of pleasure
Pleasure (pleasure) plays a central role in all forms of hedonism. It refers to an experience that feels good, involving the enjoyment of something. Pleasure is contrasted with pain or suffering, which are forms of feeling bad. Discussions within hedonism tend to focus more on pleasure, but as its negative side, pain is equally implicated in these discussions. Both pleasure and pain come in degrees and have been considered as a dimension that goes from positive degrees through a neutral point to negative degrees. The term "happiness" (happiness) is often used in this tradition to refer to the excess of pleasure over pain.
In everyday language, the term "pleasure" it is mainly associated with sensory pleasures such as the enjoyment of food or sex. But in its most general sense, it includes all kinds of positive or pleasant experiences, including enjoying sports, seeing a beautiful sunset or engaging in an intellectually satisfying activity. The theories of pleasure try to determine what all these pleasurable experiences have in common, what is essential in them. Traditionally they are divided into quality theories (quality theories) and attitude theories. Quality theories hold that pleasure is a quality of pleasurable experiences themselves, while attitude theories hold that pleasure is, in some sense, external to the experience, since it depends on the attitude of the subject towards the experience.
The plausibility of the different versions of hedonism depends on how the nature of pleasure is conceived. A major attraction of most forms of hedonism is that they can give a simple and unified account of their respective fields. But this is only possible if the pleasure itself is a unified phenomenon. This has been called into question, mainly because of the wide variety of pleasure experiences that seem to have no shared characteristics in common. One option open to quality theorists to answer this objection is to suggest that the hedonic tone of experiences of pleasure is not a regular quality, but a higher-order quality. Attitude theories have an easier way of responding to this argument, since they can argue that it is the same type of attitude, often identified with desire, which is common to all pleasurable experiences.
Psychological hedonism
psychological hedonism, also known as motivational hedonism, is an empirical theory about what motivates us: it states that all our actions are aimed at increasing pleasure and avoiding pain. This is generally understood in combination with egoism, meaning that each person only aims for their own happiness. Our actions are based on beliefs about what causes pleasure. False beliefs can deceive us and therefore our actions may fail to result in pleasure, but even failed actions are motivated by considerations of pleasure, according to psychological hedonism. The hedonism paradox holds that pleasure-seeking behavior it commonly fails in another way as well. He claims that being motivated by pleasure is self-defeating in the sense that it leads to less real pleasure than following other motives.
One of the attractions of psychological hedonism is that it offers a simple narrative that promises to explain the totality of human behavior. It has initial intuitive plausibility because pleasure-seeking behavior is a common phenomenon and may, in fact, dominate our behavior at times. But the claim that this can be generalized to all behaviors is highly controversial. A common strategy for opponents is to point to various counterexamples involving actions that have no plausible explanation in terms of pleasure. These counterexamples include selfish motives for things other than pleasure, such as health, self-improvement, or fame after death, and altruistic motives, such as wanting one's child to be happy, sacrificing oneself for a greater cause, or standing up for justice despite of personal disadvantages. Psychological hedonists have tried to reinterpret these cases in terms of pleasure-seeking behavior. There is some plausibility in such reinterpretations in some cases, for example, improving health can be seen as avoiding pain in the long run, or seeing their children happy can also bring pleasure to parents. But it is doubtful that this can work for all cases, such as a soldier who is sacrificing himself.
But even in many everyday cases, introspection seems to suggest that seeking pleasure is just one type of motive among others. To reinterpret all of these cases in terms of pleasure would go against introspective insight. Another problem with psychological hedonism as a philosophical theory is that its basic claim, what motivates us, seems to be more at home in empirical psychology than in philosophy.. As such, strong empirical evidence would be needed to confirm this, just being able to tell a plausible account is not enough.
Ethical Hedonism
ethical hedonism (ethical hedonism) or normative hedonism (normative hedonism), as here defines, is the thesis that considerations of increasing pleasure and decreasing pain determine what we should do or what action is correct. However, it is sometimes defined in a broader sense in terms of intrinsic value, in which case it includes axiological hedonism as defined below. It is different from psychological hedonism in that it prescribes our behavior rather than describing it. In a strict sense, ethical hedonism is a form of consequentialism, as it determines whether an action is correct based on its consequences, which are measured here in terms of pleasure and pain. As such, it is subject to the main arguments for and against consequentialism. On the positive side, these include the insight that the consequences of our actions matter and that through them we must make the world a better place. On the negative side, consequentialism would imply that we rarely, if ever, know how to distinguish the right from wrong, as our knowledge of the future is quite limited and the consequences of even simple actions can be enormous. As a form of hedonism, it has some initial intuitive appeal, as pleasure and pain seem to be relevant to how we must act. But it has been argued that it is morally objectionable to see pleasure and pain as the only factors relevant to what we should do, since this position seems to ignore, for example, the values of justice, friendship and truth. Ethical hedonism is usually concerned with both pleasure and pain. But the narrower version in the form of negative consequentialism or negative utilitarianism) focuses only on reducing suffering. ethical hedonism was pioneered by Aristippus of Cyrene, who held the idea that pleasure is the highest good.
Ethical hedonistic theories can be classified in relation to whose pleasure should be increased. According to the egotistical version, each agent should only aspire to maximize her own pleasure. This position is generally not held in very high regard. Altruistic theories, commonly known by the term "classical utilitarianism" (classical hedonism), are more respectable in the philosophical community. They hold that the agent should maximize the sum total of everyone's happiness. This sum total also includes the agent's pleasure, but only as one factor among many. A common objection against utilitarianism is that it is too demanding This is most pronounced in cases where the agent has to sacrifice her own happiness to promote the happiness of another person. For example, several commentators have directed this argument against the position of Peter Singer, who similarly suggests that the right thing to do for most people living in developed countries would be to donate a significant portion of their income to charity, thus seems too demanding to many. Singer justifies his position by pointing out that the suffering that can be avoided in third world countries in this way considerably outweighs the pleasure one gets from how money would otherwise be spent. Another major objection to Utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account the personal nature of moral duties, for example, that it may be more important to promote the happiness of those close to us, for example our family and friends, even if the alternative course of action would result in a little more happiness for a stranger.
Axiological hedonism
Axiological hedonism is the thesis that only pleasure has intrinsic value. It has also been called evaluative hedonism (evaluative hedonism) or value hedonism (value hedonism), and is sometimes included in ethical hedonism., the only things that are good for someone. Fundamental to the understanding of axiological hedonism is the distinction between intrinsic value and instrumental value. An entity has intrinsic value if it is good in or of itself. instrumental value, on the other hand, is attributed to things that they are valuable only as a means to something else. For example, tools like cars or microwaves are said to be instrumentally valuable by virtue of the function they perform, while the happiness they cause is intrinsically valuable. valuable. Axiological hedonism is a claim about intrinsic value, not about value in general.
Within the realm of axiological hedonism, there are two competing theories about the exact relationship between pleasure and value: quantitative hedonism and qualitative hedonism. ). Quantitative hedonists, following Jeremy Bentham, argue that the specific content or quality of a pleasure experience is not relevant to its value, which only depends on its quantitative characteristics: intensity and duration. According to this account, an experience of intense pleasure from indulging in food and sex is worth more than a experience of subtle pleasure from looking at fine art or engaging in intellectually stimulating conversation. Qualitative hedonists, following John Stuart Mill, object to this version on the grounds that it threatens to turn axiological hedonism into a "philosophy of pigs". Instead, they argue that quality is another factor relevant to the value of a pleasure experience, for example, that the lower pleasures of the body are less valuable than the higher pleasures of the mind.
One attraction of axiological hedonism is that it provides a simple, unified account of what matters. It also reflects the introspective insight that pleasure feels valuable as something worth seeking. It has been influential throughout the history of Western philosophy, but has received much criticism in contemporary philosophy. Most Some of the objections can be roughly divided into two types: (1) objections to the claim that pleasure is a sufficient condition of intrinsic value or that all pleasure is intrinsically valuable; (2) objections to the claim that pleasure is a necessary condition of intrinsic value or that there are no intrinsically valuable things apart from pleasure. Opponents of the first category often try to point to cases of pleasure that appear to be worthless or have a negative value, such as sadistic pleasure or pleasure due to a false belief. Qualitative hedonists may try to account for these cases by devaluing the pleasures associated with the qualities problematic. Other ways to respond to this argument include rejecting the claim that these pleasures really have no intrinsic value or have negative intrinsic value. One more way is to reject that these cases involve pleasure at all.
Various thought experiments have been proposed for the second category, that there are intrinsically valuable things other than pleasure. The best known in recent philosophy is Robert Nozick's experience machine. Nozick asks us if we would accept being permanently transported to a simulated reality more pleasant than real life. He thinks it's rational to turn down this offer, since things other than pleasure matter. This has to do with the fact that it matters to be in touch with reality and to really "make a difference in the world" rather than just seeming to, as life would otherwise be meaningless. Axiological hedonists have responded to this thought experiment by pointing out that our intuitions about what we should do are wrong, for example that there is a cognitive bias to prefer the status quo and that if we discovered that we had already spent our lives inside the experience machine, we would probably choose to stay inside the machine. Another objection within this category is that many things besides of pleasure seem valuable to us, such as virtue, beauty, knowledge or justice. For example, G. E. Moore suggests in a famous thought experiment that a world consisting only of beautiful scenery is better than an ugly and disgusting world, even if there is no conscious being to observe and enjoy or suffer from either world. One way to respond for the axiological hedonist is to explain the value of these things in terms of instrumental values. So, for example, virtue is good because it tends to increase the general pleasure of the virtuous person or those around him. This can be combined with holding that there is a psychological bias to confuse stable instrumental values with intrinsic values, thus explaining the opponent's intuition. Although this strategy may work for some cases, it is controversial whether it can be applied to all counterexamples.
Aesthetic hedonism
Aesthetic hedonism is the influential view in the field of aesthetics that beauty or aesthetic value can be defined in terms of pleasure, for example, that for an object to be beautiful it is for it to cause pleasure or that the experience of beauty is always accompanied by pleasure. A prominent articulation of this position comes from Thomas Aquinas, who treats beauty as "what pleases in the very apprehension of it". Immanuel Kant explains this pleasure through a harmonious interaction between the faculties of understanding and imagination. Another question for aesthetic hedonists is how to explain the relationship between beauty and pleasure. This problem resembles the Euthyphro dilemma: is something beautiful because we enjoy it or do we enjoy it because it is beautiful? Identity theorists solve this problem by denying that there is a difference between beauty and pleasure: they identify beauty, or its appearance, with the experience of aesthetic pleasure.
Aesthetic hedonists often restrict and specify the notion of pleasure in various ways to avoid obvious counterexamples. An important distinction in this context is the difference between pure and mixed pleasure and mixed pleasure. Pure pleasure excludes any form of pain or unpleasant feeling, while the experience of mixed pleasure can include unpleasant elements. But beauty can involve mixed pleasure, for example, in the case of a beautifully tragic story, which is why mixed pleasure is generally allowed in aesthetic hedonistic conceptions of beauty.
Another problem facing aesthetic hedonistic theories is that we enjoy many things that are not beautiful. One way to approach this problem is to associate beauty with a special kind of pleasure: aesthetic pleasure or disinterested. A pleasure is disinterested if it is indifferent to the existence of the beautiful object or if it did not arise due to an antecedent desire through means-end reasoning. For example, the joy of looking at a beautiful landscape would still be valuable if this experience turned out to be an illusion, which would not be true if this joy stems from viewing the landscape as a valuable real estate opportunity. Opponents of hedonism often admit that many experiences of beauty are pleasurable, but deny that this is true in all cases. For example, a jaded critic may still be a good judge of beauty due to her years of experience, but lacks the joy that initially accompanied her work. One way around this objection is to allow responses to beautiful things to lack pleasure while insisting that all c beautiful bears deserve pleasure, that aesthetic pleasure is the only adequate response to them.
Relationship with utilitarianism
The term "hedonism" can be taken in two senses, broad and strict. In the first, hedonism would be a broad ethical theory in which the word pleasure would have a very broad meaning, encompassing both pleasure and utility; in this sense, utilitarianism would fit within hedonism. In a more restricted sense, hedonism differs from utilitarianism, fundamentally, because the first bases the good on individual pleasure, while the second affirms pleasure, well-being and social utility as the highest good. Hedonism has an individualistic character, utilitarianism is of a social nature and supports the point of view that human satisfaction is found in the search for and possession of material and physical pleasure.
Within hedonism in the strict sense, two forms of it can be distinguished, according to the two meanings that the term pleasure has. This designates sensible, or inferior pleasure, and spiritual, or superior pleasure. Consequently, there will be two forms of hedonism called absolute hedonism and mitigated hedonism, or eudaemonism.
Radical hedonism holds that all physical pleasures should be indulged without any restraint, while moderate hedonism holds that pleasurable activities should be moderated so that pleasure increases. In both cases pleasure is the main motivation of behavior.
As regards psychological hedonism, there are several existing doctrines according to the temporal determination of pleasure. The pleasure theory of ends, or "psychological hedonism of the future," holds that personal pleasure is a person's ultimate and only end.
Hedonism paradox
The hedonistic paradox or also known as the pleasure paradox was a theory proposed by the philosopher Henry Sidgwick in his book “The methods of ethics”, there he stated: “The impulse towards pleasure can be counterproductive. We don't get the pleasures if we deliberately seek them." Taking into account the previous statement, the way in which we really experience pleasure and joy is questioned. We can find that the paradox lies in the fact that pleasure or happiness cannot be achieved directly, but rather indirectly. And so it makes us understand that we come to find pleasure when we stop looking for it.
History
The classical schools of hedonism
The two classical schools of hedonism, formulated in Ancient Greece, are the Cyrenaic school and Epicureanism.
Cyrenaic School
Aristippus of Cyrene, disciple of Socrates and founder of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy, was one of the greatest representatives of hedonism. He considered pleasure as the main objective, that is, as an end that, when quickly achieved, it is possible to reach happiness. He emphasizes more the pleasure of the body over the mental pleasures.
The Cyrenaic school, founded between the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. C., states that pleasure is selectable by oneself, the opposite of happiness that is nothing more than the set of different pleasures. Pleasure is guided by prudence, since it is man who must dominate pleasure and not let himself be dominated by it. Pleasure is given so much priority that it overrides the fulfillment of personal desires to satisfy oneself immediately, ignoring the interests of others even if this implies immoral acts. His interest in present pleasure invites concern for today, since the future is uncertain (first my teeth, then my relatives).
It was one of the oldest Socratic schools and emphasized only one side of Socrates' teachings. Based on Socrates' claim that happiness is one of the ends of moral action, Aristippus held that pleasure was the highest good. He said that bodily gratifications, which he considered intense, were preferable to mental ones. The Cyrenaics also denied that immediate gratification was postponed for long-term gain. In this respect they differ from the Epicureans.
Epicureanism
Epicure of Samos, whose objective in philosophy was to avoid suffering by seeking happiness, therefore, the main objective for the human being should be the achievement of happiness, prioritizing the satisfaction obtained by the desires to survive and moderating those which are natural, but not vital.
Epicureism, a movement founded around 300 BC. C., states that happiness consists of living continuously under the satisfaction of pleasure that does not excite the senses, but rather the one that refers to the absence of pain or any type of affliction; Rather than seeking immediate pleasure, it seeks one that requires the use of reason, that is, the one that values the consequences over actions and grants long-term pleasure. Pleasure is associated with tranquility, which is why it is related to ataraxia, or the ability to control oneself and accept natural problems beyond our control, such as death.
Epicureanism identified pleasure with tranquility and emphasized the reduction of desire over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. In this way, Epicureanism escapes the preceding objection: while pleasure and the highest good are in fact the same, Epicurus argued that the highest pleasure consists in a simple, moderate life, supplemented by philosophical discussions among friends. He emphasized that it was not good to do something that makes you feel good if after experiencing it it would denigrate the subsequent experiences and not allow you to feel good. Likewise, he affirmed that sometimes by having intense momentary pleasures, later well-being is sacrificed. Epicurus understood by pleasure the absence of pain.
When we say that pleasure is the supreme good of life, we do not understand the pleasures of dissolutes and sensual pleasures, as some believe that do not know or accept or misinterpret our doctrine, but rather not have pain in the body or trouble in the soul.Epicurus. Letter to Meneceo.
There are writings by Epicurus and his followers that show us their doctrines: among desires, some are natural and necessary and others are neither one nor the other, only consecrated to vain opinion. The disposition we have towards each of these cases determines our ability to be happy or not.
- Within the natural and necessary desires we find the basic physical needs, such as feeding, soothing thirst, warming and sense of security.
- Within the natural and unnecessary desires are the safe conversation, sexual gratification and the arts.
- Among the unnatural and unnecessary desires are fame, political power, prestige and those generated by the companies.
Epicurus made some recommendations regarding these categories:
- We must satisfy the necessary natural desires in the most economical way possible.
- We can pursue unnecessary natural desires until the satisfaction of our heart, not referring to oneself, but to try to bring selfishness to the pleasure of another person.
- We must not risk health, friendship or economy in the quest to satisfy an unnecessary desire, as this only leads to future suffering.
- The unnatural and unnecessary desires must be completely avoided, for the pleasure or satisfaction they produce is ephemeral.
Epicurean philosophy gained a large following. It was an important school of thought that endured for seven centuries after its creator's death. Towards the Middle Ages it declined and many of its writings were destroyed. However, today there are remnants of this doctrine that have been compiled and disseminated throughout the world.
Common Grounds
The two schools converge in their repudiation of superstition and religion and their bases on conduct and judgment through experience and reason. Thus they anticipate the positions of later humanism and enlightenment.
Debauchery
An extreme form of hedonism that views moral and sexual restraint as unnecessary or harmful. Famous defenders are the Marquis de Sade and John Wilmot.
Utilitarianism
In the 18th and 19th centuries, British philosophers Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill proposed a universal doctrine better known as utilitarianism. According to this theory, human behavior must have the social good as its final criterion. You have to guide yourself morally looking for everything that provides and favors the well-being of a greater number of people.
Contemporary Hedonism
Within contemporary philosophy, the figure of Michel Onfray stands out as an open proponent of hedonism, who stated in an interview that «it is believed that the hedonist is the one who praises property, wealth, of having, who is a consumer. That is a vulgar hedonism that society promotes. I propose a philosophical hedonism that is largely the opposite, of being instead of having, that does not go through money, but through behavior modification. Achieve a real presence in the world, and joyfully enjoy existence: smell better, taste better, hear better, not be angry with the body and consider passions and drives as friends and not as adversaries.
Another notable figure in defense of this hedonistic approach is the writer Valérie Tasso. Her book Anti-Sex Manual tries to address the phenomenon of human sexuality from this perspective with statements such as the following: «Hedonism is an attitude towards life. It is a vital philosophy that instantly prevails over future, that vindicates courage over fear, that respects materiality and questions the spirit, that manages what happens without despising itself for what never happened, that appreciates the logic of life and questions the logic of death, which knows that enough is enough, which seeks pleasure where it is, not where it is sought, which makes its body its ally and not its prison, which it desires without being enslaved by its desire, which uses his time more than his money [...] The hedonist exercises the difficult art of establishing peace with himself".
Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce believes in and promotes the idea that there is a strong ethical imperative for humans to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient life. His manifesto The Hedonistic Imperative describes how technologies such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology, pharmacology, and neurosurgery could converge to eliminate all forms of unpleasant experiences between human and non-human animals, replacing suffering. with wellness gradients, a project he refers to as "paradise engineering".
Opponents and their views
The Catholic faith opposes the most sensual forms of hedonism, considering that they undermine the values and virtues of spiritual eudaemonism, on which Christianity has often founded its morality.
Hedonism is considered by many religions an attitude devoid of morality, but not because it appreciates any pleasure, but because it puts it before the demands of love for God and neighbor. For Catholicism, it is an attitude that runs the risk of falling into egocentrism, which seriously disables the subject to relate to others, unless it is to exploit them and satisfy his desire for pleasure.
The British philosopher G. E. Moore devotes much of his book Principia Ethica (1903) to the refutation of hedonism. He understands that considering that pleasure and only pleasure is good means falling into what he called the "naturalistic fallacy." By saying that "pleasure and only pleasure is good," pleasure becomes an equivalent of "good." Thus the proposition "pleasure is good" really means "pleasure is pleasure," a tautology of no ethical interest. Moore defended that the good was indefinable, although certain characteristics could be attributed to it that, nevertheless, would not delimit its meaning completely.
Positive psychology, based on scientific research on cognitive psychology, has often thought that sustaining happiness in the pursuit of pleasure, "the pleasant life", leads to a higher rate of dissatisfaction. The search for authentic happiness, as psychologist Martin E. P. Seligman points out, involves placing a greater focus on commitment and meaning. The "committed life" is based on gratifications that cannot be acquired by shortcuts, such as learning a trade, or a sport; the "flow" is sought, which is the balance of challenge with skill. On the other hand, meaningful life is actions and beliefs based on something greater than our ego, actions motivated by a common good, and so on. It has been said that those who base their happiness on the "engaged life" and "meaningful life" have a higher rate of life satisfaction. "Authentic happiness" is a concept superior to the simple fact of not feeling pain, feeling pleasure, or not suffering from psychological illnesses.
These data, however, are not scientific, but rather ideal. Most neuroscientists believe that our brains work on a “reward-punishment” scheme, in which something that would benefit our ancestors (food, belonging to a group, or having sex) leads to the production of endorphins, or pleasure hormones., which would make the hedonists right. Although it is warned that some parts of hedonistic theories may be moral and do not precisely address an objective issue.