Is there anything worth going to hell for? Hedonism

TheMadFool

Hedonism as I understand is the philosophy that if anything has value then it is that thing's ability to make us happy. Put differently, there is no value in things beyond its ability to affect our happiness. By happiness I refer to pleasure, seeking it and pain, avoiding it.

Suppose hedonism is false and that there exists non-hedonistic values that are desirable. Whatever these values are, people want things that have these values. Now, it must be that, in terms of happiness, these non-hedonistic values have the following effects:

1. Non-hedonistic values cause neither pleasure nor pain
2. Non-hedonistic values cause pleasure
3. Non-hedonistic values cause pain

1 and 2 are not of concern as in 1, non-hedonistic values are independent of happiness and they remain desirable solely on whatever the value is that makes them desirable and in 2, there's an enhancement of desirability by the concurrence of both hedonistic and non-hedonistic values.

3 is where I see a problem because the two, hedonistic value and non-hedonistic values are in opposition, the former decreasing desirability and the latter increasing desirability. The outcome of this struggle between the different types of values will determine, in my eyes, which is of greater importance. Suppose that we scale up the pain; if we do that then there will be a point at which the non-hedonistic values that are in play are not worth the pain involved. In other words, pain has the ability of affecting non-hedonistic values; the ability to, if we increase the pain involved, decrease them to a point where non-hedonistic values become undesirable.

There's also the other situation to consider viz. the one in which we maintain the amount of pain at a particular level and increase the non-hedonistic values. In this case then we'll see people willing to ignore happiness for non-hedonistic values.

It seems then that there is no resolution to the problem because in one case happiness (avoiding extreme pain) is the deciding factor for desirability and in the other non-hedonistic values are what makes something desirable.

In order to solve this conundrum we need to consider the scenario in which both non-hedonistic values and pain are set at maximum values. The only maximal pain I can think of is hell. So, the question is then: are there any non-hedonistic values that are worth going through hell for? Imagine you like reading books because of non-hedonistic values.. Would you read books if it meant that you'd have to go to hell even if the non-hedonistic values of reading was increased proportionately?

It's my belief that people will answer "no" and so, even if there exists non-hedonistic values, there isn't any value that is worth going to hell for.

So, hedonism is true but not in the sense that all value is attached to happiness but actually that happiness (pleasure & pain) override everything, including non-hedonistic values.

If the answer is "yes" then I'd be pleasantly surprised and would like to request you to tell us what that is that's worth hellfire? Love? Immortality?

unenlightened

So, hedonism is true but not in the sense that all value is attached to happiness but actually that happiness (pleasure & pain) override everything, including non-hedonistic values. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure I understand, but perhaps I can bring things down, or up, to earth and see what you think.

From my happy position of suffering no more than the usual aches of old-age, I might well claim that I would never betray my lover.

But when Big Brother takes me to room 101 and tortures me, in the moment my will breaks, and perhaps eventually everyone's will breaks under torture.

And then when I have been freed, my shame and regret at my betrayal tortures me for the rest of my life.

It seems to me that one's values are not fixed and independent of time. That desire is itself a product, or even the source of time, psychologically. That is, to desire is to form an image of what is-not and try to become that. I am being tortured, and I form the image of not being tortured, and that image is the desire and the movement of my will. And thus there is a conflict between what is and the image of what might be. And then there is another conflict between the image I have in room 101 and the image I have after being freed. - I desire then not to be the one who betrayed.

This seems a more useful way to think about things, that in a sense the conflict is always between the present that relates to the hedonic, and the future self that relates to the non-hedonic. One tends to betray one's future self. as the glutton betrays his future health and happiness for the immediate pleasure of eating.

Frank Apisa

↪TheMadFool

My feelings are that we are all "hedonists" in that we all seem to do those things that bring us the most satisfaction.

Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer were hedonists. Yeah, they were humanitarians, but they did what pleased themselves...what brought happiness to themselves.

What I wonder is "Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires?"

I like sushi

↪TheMadFool

I was looking at the original meaning of ‘hedonism’ a year or so ago. Cannot recall exactly what it was, but remember there were subtle differences between the philosophers of the time that made it look similar to the stoics thoughts.

TheMadFool

This seems a more useful way to think about things, that in a sense the conflict is always between the present that relates to the hedonic, and the future self that relates to the non-hedonic. One tends to betray one's future self. as the glutton betrays his future health and happiness for the immediate pleasure of eating. — unenlightened

Firstly, what you say seems to fit well with hedonism - the pain devaluing whatever it is that has non-hedonistic value and the pleasure doing the same to another non-hedonistic value. That whatever happened was regretted speaks in favor of the existence of non-hedonistic value but that a regrettable event occured is telling, no?

What do you make of the opposite situation, to wit our willingness to forsake immediate pleasure or endure immediate pain i.e. renounce present happiness, for a future non-hedonistic reward? This to me, is the reason for the belief that there's such a thing as non-hedonistic values. However, in my OP I demonstrated, quite unequivocally, that the instant pain comes into play, no value, even non-hedonistic ones, matter. In other words, happiness sits at the throne of the world of values - every other value is but a meek subject to this Shahenshah (king of kings) of values and must, in all cases, remain within the Shahenshah's iron grip.

What I wonder is "Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires?" — Frank Apisa

That's possible but that doesn't in anyway disprove hedonism; after all we've all been in situations in which that we didn't want happened. However, what is of relevance is that what you want has hedonistic value or, as my reply to unenlightened shows, whatever it is that you want, it must go through the happiness section of values. It's as though this what I've called the happiness section has the last word on desirability - you may go to it with a fantastic non-hedonistic value based proposal but if there's too much pain involved, it'll be vetoed. Doesn't this indicate that there can be no confusion about who's the boss re values.

I was looking at the original meaning of ‘hedonism’ a year or so ago. Cannot recall exactly what it was, but remember there were subtle differences between the philosophers of the time that made it look similar to the stoics thoughts. — I like sushi

:ok:

unenlightened

That whatever happened was regretted speaks in favor of the existence of non-hedonistic value but that a regrettable event occured is telling, no? — TheMadFool

Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires? — Frank Apisa

The cliched scenario is the man who throws himself on top of a hand grenade in the trench to save his fellows. It happens that someone will sacrifice his life for his friends, and the price of calling this hedonic, or doing what he wants and desires is a radical change of language and inability to account for moral motivation at all. But I want to emphasise the conflict. I want to eat, but I don't want to get fat; I want to save my friends, but I don't want to die; I want to be a philosopher, but I don't want to think too hard. Sometimes one takes the pain for the gain, and sometimes one does not make a calculation at all, and sometimes one indulges and pays for it. think it is a mistake to say that these things are all the same - all just 'doing what one wants'.

TheMadFool

The cliched scenario is the man who throws himself on top of a hand grenade in the trench to save his fellows. It happens that someone will sacrifice his life for his friends, and the price of calling this hedonic, or doing what he wants and desires is a radical change of language and inability to account for moral motivation at all. But I want to emphasise the conflict. I want to eat, but I don't want to get fat; I want to save my friends, but I don't want to die; I want to be a philosopher, but I don't want to think too hard. Sometimes one takes the pain for the gain, and sometimes one does not make a calculation at all, and sometimes one indulges and pays for it. think it is a mistake to say that these things are all the same - all just 'doing what one wants'. — unenlightened

Thanks for your wish to emphasize the conflict. The mere existence of a conflict between hedonistic value and non-hedonistic values is enough to prove that hedonism is not the be all and end all of values.

That said, I haven't seen anyone mention even one non-hedonistic value but let's ignore that for the moment and assume that there are such values. At the risk of repeating myself but well in line with your desire to emphasize the conflict between hedonistic value and non-hedonistic values, the winner is invariably the hedonistic value. I consider this to be ample evidence that hedonism is the ultimate overarching paradigm for any and all values.

Thank you for your valuable comments.

unenlightened

the winner is invariably the hedonistic value. I consider this to be ample evidence that hedonism is the ultimate overarching paradigm for any and all values. — TheMadFool

So the man who lays down his life for his friends is a hedonist?

Frank Apisa

unenlightened
4.4k
the winner is invariably the hedonistic value. I consider this to be ample evidence that hedonism is the ultimate overarching paradigm for any and all values.
— TheMadFool

So the man who lays down his life for his friends is a hedonist? — unenlightened

In a sense, there is no greater manifestation of hedonism.

Imagine how much one has to "desire it"...for the "it" to be giving up one's life for another.

It is what every martyr has done.

Jesus did it; Joan of Arc did it; Sydney Carton is made a hero for fictionally doing it; many have done it.

TheMadFool

So the man who lays down his life for his friends is a hedonist? — unenlightened

Good question. I don't wish to disrespect, belittle or downplay such noble acts of self-sacrifice. However, to be honest, the question that pops into my mind is, "why does a man sacrifice his own interests for others?"

Firstly to give one's life for another proceeds from some kind of value analysis. In the case of the person taking one for the team, this analysis leads to the conclusion that faers happiness is of lesser value than the happiness of relevant others. In other words, since happiness appears in the calculations, giving one's life for others is essentially hedonistic. Having said that, I must stress on the fact that such noble acts deserve the highest commendation; after all, it involves putting others before self, an impossible task for most of us.

unenlightened

"why does a man sacrifice his own interests for others?" — TheMadFool

Allow me to turn it around. It is completely normal in nature for a mother to sacrifice for her child. There is a genetic argument as to why this happens, but we are talking about a person acting intentionally not a gene operating without awareness.

So why do you even find it strange or problematic that people are unselfish? What is it about the limit of the epidermis that forbids, or rather, ought to forbid one's concern to reach beyond to another?

christian2017

Hedonism as I understand is the philosophy that if anything has value then it is that thing's ability to make us happy. Put differently, there is no value in things beyond its ability to affect our happiness. By happiness I refer to pleasure, seeking it and pain, avoiding it.

Suppose hedonism is false and that there exists non-hedonistic values that are desirable. Whatever these values are, people want things that have these values. Now, it must be that, in terms of happiness, these non-hedonistic values have the following effects:

1. Non-hedonistic values cause neither pleasure nor pain
2. Non-hedonistic values cause pleasure
3. Non-hedonistic values cause pain

1 and 2 are not of concern as in 1, non-hedonistic values are independent of happiness and they remain desirable solely on whatever the value is that makes them desirable and in 2, there's an enhancement of desirability by the concurrence of both non-hedonistic and non-hedonistic values.

3 is where I see a problem because the two, hedonistic value and non-hedonistic values are in opposition, the former decreasing desirability and the latter increasing desirability. The outcome of this struggle between the different types of values will determine, in my eyes, which is of greater importance. Suppose that we scale up the pain; if we do that then there will be a point at which the non-hedonistic values that are in play are not worth the pain involved. In other words, pain has the ability of affecting non-hedonistic values; the ability to, if we increase the pain involved, decrease them to a point where non-hedonistic values become undesirable.

There's also the other situation to consider viz. the one in which we maintain the amount of pain at a particular level and increase the non-hedonistic values. In this case then we'll see people willing to ignore happiness for non-hedonistic values.

It seems then that there is no resolution to the problem because in one case happiness (avoiding extreme pain) is the deciding factor for desirability and in the other non-hedonistic values are what makes something desirable.

In order to solve this conundrum we need to consider the scenario in which both non-hedonistic values and pain are set at maximum values. The only maximal pain I can think of is hell. So, the question is then: are there any non-hedonistic values that are worth going through hell for? Imagine you like reading books because of non-hedonistic values.. Would you read books if it meant that you'd have to go to hell even if the non-hedonistic values of reading was increased proportionately?

It's my belief that people will answer "no" and so, even if there exists non-hedonistic values, there isn't any value that is worth going to hell for.

So, hedonism is true but not in the sense that all value is attached to happiness but actually that happiness (pleasure & pain) override everything, including non-hedonistic values.

If the answer is "yes" then I'd be pleasantly surprised and would like to request you to tell us what that is that's worth hellfire? Love? Immortality? — TheMadFool

We can only make decisions based on the information we have IMO. We have all suffered to X extent at some point in our lives. I would argue if someone thought they were going to hell forever, they should just analyze their past and decide and attempt to make better decisions in the future. This is a philosophy forum with certain guide lines.

TheMadFool

Allow me to turn it around. It is completely normal in nature for a mother to sacrifice for her child. There is a genetic argument as to why this happens, but we are talking about a person acting intentionally not a gene operating without awareness.

So why do you even find it strange or problematic that people are unselfish? What is it about the limit of the epidermis that forbids, or rather, ought to forbid one's concern to reach beyond to another? — unenlightened

Firstly, neither you nor anyone else has fulfilled my request to present a non-hedonistic value. I tried but every value I could think of couldn't escape the clutches of hedonism and so my request.

Secondly, I'm not denying the existence of non-hedonistic values but I am claiming that they ultimately have to pass the hedonism test.

Hedonism test: is any value worth the pain involved?

TheMadFool

We can only make decisions based on the information we have IMO. We have all suffered to X extent at some point in our lives. I would argue if someone thought they were going to hell forever, they should just analyze their past and decide and attempt to make better decisions in the future. This is a philosophy forum with certain guide lines — christian2017

:ok: thanks

Pinprick

Maybe this is off topic or irrelevant, but how does masochism factor into all this?

christian2017

My feelings are that we are all "hedonists" in that we all seem to do those things that bring us the most satisfaction.

Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer were hedonists. Yeah, they were humanitarians, but they did what pleased themselves...what brought happiness to themselves.

What I wonder is "Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires?" — Frank Apisa

this is certainly something worth thinking about. I would argue if you/i only have 10 days to live, then and only then can we live a good life.

TheMadFool

Maybe this is off topic or irrelevant, but how does masochism factor into all this? — Pinprick

The pain is worth the gain. In other words masochism passes the hedonism test.I believe there are limits to the pain even a masochist will/can endure. However, it does appear that the difference between pain and pleasure gets blurred in masochism. Nevertheless, there is pleasure involved; it's just in a roundabout way.

TheMadFool

Reveal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#/media/File:Hortus_Deliciarum_-_Hell.jpg

TheMadFool

how come I can't post pictures? :sad:

Frank Apisa

↪TheMadFool

Yep.

How do you torture a masochist?

Be loving toward him!

unenlightened

Firstly, neither you nor anyone else has fulfilled my request to present a non-hedonistic value. I tried but every value I could think of couldn't escape the clutches of hedonism and so my request. — TheMadFool

What makes a value hedonistic? My own understanding of hedonism is that it is individualist. I am always and only concerned with my own happiness, so by this understanding, I would only fulfil your request if it made me happy - such as by making me feel smug. This is what the majority of posters seem to be saying, that I literally cannot fulfil your request unless it makes me happy.

What this seems to imply is that there is no significant difference between the man who lays down his life for his friends, and the man who lays down his life for his fix. Both are hedonists. And the result of this is that every act is hedonistic every motive is hedonistic and nothing is not hedonistic. The term has lost all meaning.

But Mrs un has made me a cup of tea. And this is not the same as making herself a cup of tea. Some acts are oriented to oneself, and some acts are oriented towards others, and this is fairly typical of any social species. Mrs un makes herself a cup because she wants one: and she makes me a cup because I want one. I think the different orientation is significant, but I don't think it matters too much what terms you use, as long as your understanding can take account of the distinction. Self- centred and other-centred will do, or hedonistic and altruistic if you like, or some other terms of your choice.

schopenhauer1

↪unenlightened

Schopenhauer seemed to imply that our normal mode is self-interest (perhaps similar to hedonistic tendencies of seeking pleasure). A test of true compassion would be to see if one's actions were done despite what one's own self-interest might have wanted at that time. So a non-hedonistic value might be compassion- seeing the suffering in others and being motivated by alleviating it, even if it meant some self-sacrifice of giving up what one would otherwise do if compassion was not the motivating force.

Frank Apisa

But Mrs un has made me a cup of tea. And this is not the same as making herself a cup of tea. Some acts are oriented to oneself, and some acts are oriented towards others, and this is fairly typical of any social species. Mrs un makes herself a cup because she wants one: and she makes me a cup because I want one. I think the different orientation is significant, but I don't think it matters too much what terms you use, as long as your understanding can take account of the distinction. Self- centred and other-centred will do, or hedonistic and altruistic if you like, or some other terms of your choice. — unenlightened

What you are disregarding is that Mrs. un is deriving satisfaction from making YOU a cup of tea. Yes, she made a cup of tea for herself...to satisfy something that pleased her. And she made a cup of tea for you...to satisfy something that pleased her also. Doing the one...does not negate doing the other.

Frank Apisa

No one is ever going to supply Mad Fool's request...because everything we do is to satisfy ourselves. As I said earlier, Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer were as hedonistic in their humanitarianism...as some twisted asshole getting his jollies boffing a Volkswagen exhaust pipe.

unenlightened

Phaedr. Listen. You know how matters stand with me; and how, as I conceive, this affair may be arranged for the advantage of both of us. And I maintain that I ought not to fail in my suit, because I am not your lover: for lovers repent of the kindnesses which they have shown when their passion ceases, but to the non-lovers who are free and not under any compulsion, no time of repentance ever comes; for they confer their benefits according to the measure of their ability, in the way which is most conducive to their own interest. Then again, lovers consider how by reason of their love they have neglected their own concerns and rendered service to others: and when to these benefits conferred they add on the troubles which they have endured, they think that they have long ago made to the beloved a very ample return. But the non-lover has no such tormenting recollections; he has never neglected his affairs or quarrelled with his relations; he has no troubles to add up or excuse to invent; and being well rid of all these evils, why should he not freely do what will gratify the beloved?

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html

What you are disregarding is that Mrs. un is deriving satisfaction from making YOU a cup of tea. — Frank Apisa

No, I'm not disregarding it, but I am denying that the satisfaction she gets is the motive she has. In fact the satisfaction she gets is dependent on it not being done for herself, but for me. But what you are disregarding is everything I have written, and in particular that what you are claiming is not even wrong, merely vacuous.

TheMadFool

What makes a value hedonistic? — unenlightened

Good question. If you value something only for the happiness you derive from it, then that's a hedonistic value. No other value either exists or counts. That's as far as I could get.

What this seems to imply is that there is no significant difference between the man who lays down his life for his friends, and the man who lays down his life for his fix. Both are hedonists. And the result of this is that every act is hedonistic every motive is hedonistic and nothing is not hedonistic. The term has lost all meaning. — unenlightened

Why has it lost meaning?

It seems meaningful enough to say that everyone wants happiness. If you disagree, you'll have to show me that some people don't want happiness.

Also, there's sufficient meaning, although I don't claim it, in the statement that all value is hedonistic. A disproof would require you to show me a non-hedonistic value.

Frank Apisa

No, I'm not disregarding it, but I am denying that the satisfaction she gets is the motive she has. — unenlightened

We both agree that Mrs. un get the satisfaction. BUT you are assigning a motive for the satisfaction...that may be wrong.

I am merely saying that she gets satisfaction out of making you the tea. It pleases her. It probably pleases her a great deal. For you to definitively say that the pleasure derived is not the motivation...is unwarranted. It may very well be the motivation.

But whether it is or not...we can agree that she does derive pleasure out of it.

In fact the satisfaction she gets is dependent on it not being done for herself, but for me. — unenlightened

We agree on that also. Just as we agree that she is deriving satisfaction or pleasure from doing it FOR YOU.

But what you are disregarding is everything I have written, and in particular that what you are claiming is not even wrong, merely vacuous. — unenlightened

How could I be disregarding it...when I am responding to it? Sorry you consider my remarks vacuous, un. No reason for that.

By the way, you should avoid over-use of the "it is not even wrong" meme. It is stale as a year old slice of bread.

TheMadFool

How do you torture a masochist?

Be loving toward him! — Frank Apisa

Masochists don't have an aversion to pleasure; to the extent I'm aware, their quirk is they find pain pleasurable but the converse isn't true.

unenlightened

Good question. If you value something only for the happiness you derive from it, then that's a hedonistic value. No other value either exists or counts. That's as far as I could get. — TheMadFool

Right. well Mrs un cannot value the tea she makes for me only for the happiness she derives from it because the happiness she derives comes not from the tea but from my happiness.

Perhaps I need to spell out the causality of motivation here because people tend to get confused.

What causes Mrs un to make a cup of tea? Obviously, it is not the pleasure of drinking it, because causes have to precede their effects, and the pleasure of drinking always comes after the making. No, the cause can only be the imagined pleasure, and this is the fundamental nature of desire, that it is formed of images from memory that are given an imagined value also from memory and to act according to one's desires is to attempt to realise those images.

And are there other acts that do not concern the realisation of images? Of course there are. But that is not important here. What is important is that the result of an action cannot be the cause of it.

petrichor

How about the value of truth, even if it is dark? Often, our happiness and pleasure depend on believing lies. But some choose to see the truth, even if it might invalidate their very lives. I suppose you could argue that they get some sort of pleasure from the idea that they are faithful to the truth, but I think it would be a stretch.

Consider that we tend to believe that there are higher and lower pleasures. The pleasure of eating a donut or masturbating is certainly lower than that of being there for someone in distress, creating a work of art, struggling to understand a profound mathematical theorem, overcoming an addiction, curing cancer, or some such. Here lies a clue. What all these have in common is pleasure, yes, but pay attention to the vertical dimension that makes some pleasures higher than others. There is your non-hedonic value.

It isn't that it is pleasurable that makes a higher pleasure more valuable than a lower one, since all of these pleasures are pleasurable, but rather something else, something hard to define. We are dealing with a second dimension.

The sort of value I am talking about seems actually independent of pleasure. In fact, it seems to often justify pain.

But we get some sort of satisfaction out of it, you say! Well, why? Isn't that very satisfaction a mere consequence of the fact that we appreciate the actual non-hedonic value in it? The pleasure here results from the fact that we love the good. When the good is increased, it makes us happy. But it isn't the resulting happiness that makes the good good. Rather, it is the goodness itself that makes us glad. We are gladdened precisely because we perceive the value, not the ither way around. The goodness is prior. The fact that goodness is associated with pleasure does not mean that goodness is identical with pleasure or a result of it.

TheMadFool

Right. well Mrs un cannot value the tea she makes for me only for the happiness she derives from it because the happiness she derives comes not from the tea but from my happiness.

Perhaps I need to spell out the causality of motivation here because people tend to get confused.

What causes Mrs un to make a cup of tea? Obviously, it is not the pleasure of drinking it, because causes have to precede their effects, and the pleasure of drinking always comes after the making. No, the cause can only be the imagined pleasure, and this is the fundamental nature of desire, that it is formed of images from memory that are given an imagined value also from memory and to act according to one's desires is to attempt to realise those images.

And are there other acts that do not concern the realisation of images? Of course there are. But that is not important here. What is important is that the result of an action cannot be the cause of it. — unenlightened

Well, in the case of wonderful Mrs un, she derives pleasure both from you actually drinking the tea, when that happens, and also before you actually drink the tea, because she knows you enjoy drinking tea. The pleasure she experiences before you drink the tea comes from her knowledge that you enjoy tea and not from you actually taking sips from the cup which when it happens will also give her pleasure. There are two different causes in play here - one is knowledge that you like tea and the other is the enjoyment you experience when you're actually drinking the tea.

Is there anything worth going to hell for? Hedonism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions