The sensation of flying is pleasurable. So go jump off a cliff.
Falling is exhilarating, but landing is unpleasant.
Therefore, bungee jumping.

Philosophy is rather stupid about feelings. Life cannot be reduced to the calculus of pain and pleasure or any one dimension of positive and negative, even after allowing that consequences are complex. Consider chronic negative states for example: — ennui, anxiety, depression, hyper-vigilance, stress.
What may alleviate ennui, might well increase stress or anxiety.

Call no man happy until he is dead.

Solon, according to Herodotus.

Because a life worth living makes a story worth telling, and unmitigated good is no story at all; it needs the relief of a crucifixion.

It is uncontroversial that pleasure can lead to pain, and happiness to misery. And vice versa. It is worth getting tired and sore gathering food and fuel for the winter. And there is joy in overcoming fear or pain in some achievement; indeed it is some such difficulty that makes it an achievement in the first place.



Or consider satisfaction or contentment - the condition of not seeking either pleasure or to avoid pain. This might be a happy state to be in sometimes, but supposing it could be prolonged, would lead to an empty, apathetic life.

And all this without mention of the complexities of social interaction - the happiness of my friends and neighbours is essential to my own happiness, and when things go wrong with you, it hurts me too.

There is a metaphysical distinction, sometimes made, between aesthetics and ethics. The principal difference is that "the good" of ethics is always sought for the sake of a higher end, a further good. Therefore there is always a reason why it is deemed as good. "It is good because...". On the other hand, the pleasure of aesthetics is sought for the sake of itself, there is no further end. This is known as "beauty", and there is no rational answer as to why it is good or pleasant.

Aristotle insisted that we must put an end to the good of ethics, or else we'd have an infinite regress. A is good for the sake of B, which is needed to bring about C, which is required for D, and onward ad infinitum. Without the end, there would be no grounding for "good" in general. The theological position inserts "God" as the ultimate end, as a sort of grounding. Aristotle proposed "happiness" as the ultimate end, that which is sought for the sake of itself.

But happiness may easily be conflated with pleasure and beauty, and this results in a unification of ethics and aesthetics. Then "the good" of ethics is supported by the pleasure of aesthetics, and everything which is deemed "good" is done so because it supports that further end, pleasure, which is desired for the sake of itself.

What are the bad pleasures according to Plato? — javi2541997

Plato demonstrated that pleasure is not properly opposed to pain. If these two are opposed, then the desire for pleasure, which is a lack of pleasure in one's present condition, would necessarily be an existence of pain. This implies that pain is a requirement for pleasure, as necessarily prior to it. So he had some argumentative tricks (which I can't recall off hand), to show that there must be a type of pleasure which is independent from, therefore not properly opposed to pain. He assigned the highest good to this type of pleasure, because it does not require pain for its attainment.

If we take this as our guide, the highest good is that pleasure which is not at all opposed to pain, then the lowest good (most bad) would be the type of pleasure which is most readily opposed to pain.

It is uncontroversial that pleasure can lead to pain, and happiness to misery. — unenlightened

I agree with this. But I was looking for a practical or objective example. Your comment seems to be on the path of Plato's view, where pleasure depends on each individual and is subjective. I think the important fact is that Plato stated that there were "bad pleasures" in plural. Thus, a collection of actions or desires which are bad and conflict with the supposedly intrinsically good of pleasure.

There is a metaphysical distinction, sometimes made, between aesthetics and ethics. The principal difference is that "the good" of ethics is always sought for the sake of a higher end, a further good. Therefore there is always a reason why it is deemed as good. "It is good because...". On the other hand, the pleasure of aesthetics is sought for the sake of itself, there is no further end. This is known as "beauty", and there is no rational answer as to why it is good or pleasant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. What do you think, MU? Is pleasure related to ethics or aesthetics?

Plato demonstrated that pleasure is not properly opposed to pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, exactly. I get this from Plato. But I think it is a bit subjective when he debates about good, bad, pain and pleasure. It seems that pleasure and pain need to be experienced by the subject, and then they conclude if something is bad or good. For example, smoking. In my humble opinion, I think smoking is a bad pleasure (following Plato's points) but completely objective because it is scientifically demonstrated that smoking kills and causes cancer. Therefore, smoking is a bad objective pleasure that does not depend on subjectiveness.

If we take this as our guide, the highest good is that pleasure which is not at all opposed to pain, then the lowest good (most bad) would be the type of pleasure which is most readily opposed to pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't disagree with this, but I consider it a bit ambiguous. What are the boundaries of pain and good? There are people who enjoy sadomasochism. Is this sexual practice objectively good or bad even though it clearly implies pain?

Interesting. What do you think, MU? Is pleasure related to ethics or aesthetics? — javi2541997

Pleasure is definitely related to aesthetics. The question is how these two are related to ethics. The two extremes would be, one, that they are completely separate and unrelated, and the other that ethics is completely determined by pleasure and aesthetics. I would think that reality is somewhere in between.

Yes, exactly. I get this from Plato. But I think it is a bit subjective when he debates about good, bad, pain and pleasure. It seems that pleasure and pain need to be experienced by the subject, and then they conclude if something is bad or good. For example, smoking. In my humble opinion, I think smoking is a bad pleasure (following Plato's points) but completely objective because it is scientifically demonstrated that smoking kills and causes cancer. Therefore, smoking is a bad objective pleasure that does not depend on subjectiveness. — javi2541997

I think you need to consider that goods, as that which is desired, need to weighted and prioritized relative to each other. This is because they often conflict, so we commonly need to exclude one for the pursuit of another. This is why Plato compared an immediate pleasure to a distant one.

Sometimes we need to resist an immediate pleasure for a distant one if the distant one is more highly prized and the immediate one conflicts. This is difficult, because being immediate it appears bigger and better than it truly is. But we need to understand that the distant one is actually better, so we need to resist the immediate one which conflicts.

I think that this might be the case in your example of smoking. Smoking is an immediate pleasure, but reason informs us that it conflicts with the long term, less immediate desires. Since the long term is more highly prioritized, we need to resist from smoking for the sake of the other. Then smoking is a "bad pleasure" because it conflicts with the other which is more highly sought after.

I can't disagree with this, but I consider it a bit ambiguous. What are the boundaries of pain and good? There are people who enjoy sadomasochism. Is this sexual practice objectively good or bad even though it clearly implies pain? — javi2541997

I don't quite understand what you are asking here. Plato was looking for a type of pleasure which was unrelated to pain, which would be determined as "good". Incorporating pain and pleasure together within the same activity, as is the case in sadomasochism is a move in the opposite direction. We're supposed to be looking for a pleasure which is unrelated to pain, not one which is more closely related to pain.