To insist is that nobody should indulge in any pleasures so long as anyone anywhere is suffering would require that everyone refrain from all pleasures until the distant day that all suffering is alleviated, resulting in a net lower level of happiness and general good across time. Since that is the absurd conclusion of saying pleasure is bad when accompanied by someone else’s suffering, we must reject that premise and instead say that everyone should seek whatever enjoyment they can wherever they can, so long as it is not causing others to suffer, but not so long as nobody else happens to be suffering. If you can manage to be happy amidst tragedies, without exacerbating them, then that is good, that increases the total good in the world.

Really? — TheMadFool

Yeah, you dug into the argument and understood the issue as I presented it. Or otherwise, I don't really have anything against a negative version or "soft" version of hedonism.

I've never heard 'hedonism' of any variety mentioned in Buddhist discourse, although the pursuit of pleasure is generally regarded as a canker and a hindrance. — Wayfarer

But, we are in agreement, that even the Buddhists are limiting something (desire) that they assume causes suffering>?

Yeah, you dug into the argument and understood the issue as I presented it. Or otherwise, I don't really have anything against a negative version or "soft" version of hedonism. — Wallows

I appreciate the spirit of hedonism. It is truly one of the greatest of philosophies, cutting through the befuddling fog and gets right to the point of literally everything we do - seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Of course there's more there than just that but I guess somebody will figure it out one day if they haven't already.

I appreciate the spirit of hedonism. It is truly one of the greatest of philosophies, cutting through the befuddling fog and gets right to the point of literally everything we do - seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Of course there's more there than just that but I guess somebody will figure it out one day if they haven't already. — TheMadFool

Yes, it is. I find it relieving, in a way that allows me to affirm my existence of solitude and comfort.

I was making a straw man of stoicism in comparison to the straw man in the OP.

I've never heard 'hedonism' of any variety mentioned in Buddhist discourse, although the pursuit of pleasure is generally regarded as a canker and a hindrance.
— Wayfarer

But, we are in agreement, that even the Buddhists are limiting something (desire) that they assume causes suffering>? — Wallows

Sure, but requires some analysis. The Buddhist approach is less like a commandment than a counsel, based on an appeal to our innate ethical sense (although I can already see that 'innate ethical sense' might be a red flag for a lot of people.)

The Buddha points to two mental qualities as the underlying safeguards of morality, thus as the protectors of both the individual and society as a whole. These two qualities are called in Pali hiri and ottappa. Hiri is an innate sense of shame over moral transgression; ottappa is moral dread, fear of the results of wrongdoing. The Buddha calls these two states the bright guardians of the world (sukka lokapala). He gives them this designation because as long as these two states prevail in people's hearts the moral standards of the world remain intact, while when their influence wanes the human world falls into unabashed promiscuity and violence, becoming almost indistinguishable from the animal realm (Itiv. 42).

While moral shame and fear of wrongdoing are united in the common task of protecting the mind from moral defilement, they differ in their individual characteristics and modes of operation. Hiri, the sense of shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in the place where it is red hot.

In the present-day world, with its secularization of all values, such notions as shame and fear of wrong are bound to appear antiquated, relics from a puritanical past when superstition and dogma manacled our rights to uninhibited self-expression. Yet the Buddha's stress on the importance of hiri and ottappa was based on a deep insight into the different potentialities of human nature. He saw that the path to deliverance is a struggle against the current, and that if we are to unfold the mind's capacities for wisdom, purity and peace, then we need to keep the powderkeg of the defilements under the watchful eyes of diligent sentinels. — Bhikkhu Bodhi

In the present-day world, with its secularization of all values, such notions as shame and fear of wrong are bound to appear antiquated — Bhikkhu Bodhi

I see absolutely no reason why they would. If by "secularization of values" you mean rejecting appeal to religious traditions, all that means is an openness to questioning what actually is a wrong to feel ashamed or afraid of, and what is not actually wrong at all and so unreasonable to feel ashamed or afraid of. For a not (necessarily) religious example, many men are ashamed to cry, or to ask for help, and afraid of the negative social consequences that will befall them if they do such a "shameful" thing. But there is nothing actually wrong with crying, or asking for help, and it is unreasonable for men to feel ashamed of it, and unreasonable for there to be negative social consequences for them doing so: they should feel free to do so, and others should not punish them for doing so. That's not to say that there is never cause for shame or fear of repercussions, just that that particular thing is not actually wrong, and so should not be a cause of shame or repercussions. Many "superstitions and dogmas" are like that: things long said to be wrong, that are not actually wrong. It is good, and positively philosophical, to question whether the things that are long said to be wrong actually are or aren't, and to feel shame about and to stand for repercussions for only those things that are actually wrong.

Also please explain why anyone would smoke if we are purely motivated by pleasure and pain. — khaled

Do you know how addiction works. Suggest you look into that.

The fear of death is the only thing that is keeping us alive.

For a not (necessarily) religious example, many men are ashamed to cry, or to ask for help, and afraid of the negative social consequences that will befall them if they do such a "shameful" thing. — Pfhorrest

I don't think expression of emotion is quite what Buddhist ethics have in mind. When they speak of 'moral dread' and 'sense of shame over moral transgressions', it is, I fear to say, rather closer to the old-fashioned sense of sin. I mean, Buddhist ethics are probably closer to traditional Christian ethics than modern secular values, even though they're based on completely different belief structures.

It is good, and positively philosophical, to question whether the things that are long said to be wrong actually are or aren't, and to feel shame about and to stand for repercussions for only those things that are actually wrong. — Pfhorrest

Quite true! Notice this well-known passage from the Pali suttas:

"So, as I [i.e. The Buddha] said, Kalamas : 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Kalama Sutta

I don't think expression of emotion is quite what Buddhist ethics have in mind. When they speak of 'moral dread' and 'sense of shame over moral transgressions', it is, I fear to say, rather closer to the old-fashioned sense of sin. I mean, Buddhist ethics are probably closer to traditional Christian ethics than modern secular values, even though they're based on completely different belief structures. — Wayfarer

I wasn't suggesting that that example I gave was the kind of thing Bhikkhu Bodhi meant, just that that's an example of letting shame and fear guide your actions that doesn't end up guiding them correctly, and that modern secular values don't do away with shame and fear, they just say they should apply to different things than traditional religious values do. The point is that shame and fear aren't the difference between modern and traditional ethics: both have them, and just disagree over what they're best applied to.

Limiting suffering does not require indulging passions for pleasure. In my personal beliefs, living a moral life will bring joy and respite from suffering. Not the blissful feeling of temporal, fleeting happiness, but a true, everlasting joy: a joy not to be repented of. This derives from stoicism. However, many find it difficult to live and reap the benefits of stoicism because they do not have religion. The two complement each other. Thus, in order to feel the joy opposite of that living suffering, one must live morally and “be good” as Marcus Aurelius would say. Unfortunately, many would disagree with this sentiment because they want instant gratification and small bursts of bliss. True joy, however, derives not from an action, but from a lifestyle.

I believe another question is “how do we alleviate pain in a moral way?” That’s one of the greatest flaws of hedonism in my opinion: a lack of morality.

Here are some important distinctions to understand regarding Hedonism:

Axiological Hedonism vs Motivational Hedonism: Axiological Hedonism argues that pleasure is the only type of thing that could make an individual life or the world better and suffering is the only kind of thing that can make those things worse. Motivational Hedonism argues that we are only motivated by pleasure and suffering.

Hard Hedonism vs Soft Hedonism: Soft Axiological Hedonism argues that there might be other types of things that impact the quality of a life besides pleasure and suffering but pleasure and suffering are the most important things to consider. Soft Motivational Hedonism argues that other things motivate us but pleasure and suffering are the main motivators.

Prudential Hedonism vs Folk Hedonism: Folk Hedonism is a lifestyle that is stereotypical of hedonists(ie sex, drugs, and rock music). Prudential Hedonism is more like Epicureanism which focuses on maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering in one’s own life.

Prudential Hedonism vs Hedonic Utilitarianism: Prudential Hedonism is only concerned with one’s own hedonic well being. Hedonic Utilitarianism is concerned with the hedonic well being of the entire world. Of course, there’s also a whole bunch of different positions in between the 2 extremes.

Positive vs Negative Hedonism: positive hedonism focuses more on pleasure. Negative hedonism focuses more on suffering.

Quantitative Hedonism vs Qualitative Hedonism: Quantitative Hedonism argues that the importance of a pleasure can be quantified while qualitative hedonism tends to think that different pleasures have radically different degrees of quality. I honestly only consider quantitative hedonism to be a form of hedonism.

Internal Hedonism vs External Hedonism: Internal Hedonism argues that pleasure and suffering are experiences while external hedonism considers them to be something else. Once again, I really don’t consider external hedonism to be a form of hedonism.

Please forgive me... but "Soft Hedonism" conjures for me an image which I can't escape, and it stops me from rational thinking of the topic, due to laughing uproarously. The image is a man trying to copulate with a limp d|(k.