listening to music, mastering an intellectual discipline etc
— Wayfarer

I would count the good or bad feelings one gets from those, and emotional states generally, as well within the domain of pleasure/pain/hedonic experience. — Pfhorrest

Prefer the other way around. ("Cognitivism"? Not that the label matters.)

By my definition, hedonism requires the pursuit of my wants, regardless of anyone, or anything else — counterpunch

That's an unusual definition then, and not the one this thread is about, an article about which I linked to in the OP. That definition is, shortly put, "what matters, morally speaking, is that people feel good rather than bad, experience pleasure rather than pain, enjoyment rather than suffering", etc. That could be people generally (altruism) or just oneself (egotism); that axis is a different one from hedonism vs... non-hedonism, for which I'm unaware of a good general word. (Let me know if anyone else is!)

Prefer the other way around. ("Cognitivism"? Not that it matters.) — bongo fury

Not sure what you mean here. "The other way around" from artistic/intellectual/etc pleasure being a proper kind of pleasure more generally would be... pleasure more generally always being an artistic/intellectual/etc pleasure? I don't know what that would mean. That there are no non-artistic/intellectual/etc pleasures?

I would have thought that the most obviously hedonist of the Greek schools was Epicurianism: 'The school rejected determinism and advocated hedonism (pleasure as the highest good), but of a restrained kind: mental pleasure was regarded more highly than physical, and the ultimate pleasure was held to be freedom from anxiety and mental pain, especially that arising from needless fear of death and of the gods.'

That state of freedom from anxiety was ataraxia, I believe. — Wayfarer

Yep, and that's entirely consistent with the kind of thing I'm asking about in the OP.

“Nobody is relevant” sounds quite selfish. — javi2541997

The option reads "Nobody's is relevant"; nobody's experience of pain or pleasure, in context. That includes oneself, so it can't be selfish. It's just a way of saying that pain or pleasure (feeling good or bad, enjoyment or suffering, etc) are not morally relevant, so that people who picked the third option for the first question have an option that applies to them in the second question.

For anyone to say it is irrelevant to morality must have said so with good reason ... I cannot fathom what that is and will be simply down to their personal understanding of what ‘morality’ means. — I like sushi

Myself likewise. I find myself just flabbergasted at the notion of reckoning something as good or bad regardless of (or even in spite of) whether it makes anybody feel good or bad.

Non-egotism, sure: other people matter. But what matters is that they feel good and not bad.

Non-consequentialism, sure: the ends don't justify the means. But what makes a means unjust is a product of the pain it inflicts on others.

Neither of those things (egotism or consequentialism) are part and parcel of hedonism. And if not hedonism, if it's not pain or pleasure, enjoyment or suffering, feeling good or bad, that are the criteria for judging whether something is good or bad, then what is? Just... because someone said so?

Happy to dismiss the relevance of any non-artistic/intellectual pleasures to aesthetic analysis or ethical analysis/design. (And preferring to analyse the aesthetic or ethical satisfaction in terms of understanding rather than pleasure.)

Pain a different matter for the ethics, I suppose. Happy to admit the relevance of (any kind of) suffering to ethical analysis. Just not that of pleasure. Agreeing with @Wayfarer there.

yep. Sure sounds exactly what I would expect ‘ancient hedonism’ to be.

what I'm particularly interested in is hedonism's need for a, to use a computer metaphor, patch to make it morality-apt. Hedonism by itself doesn't cut it so to speak. — TheMadFool

I think many philosophies and religions have recognised humanity’s two-fold nature, both as a kind of animal, but also endowed with capacities that animals don’t exhibit. Pleasure has often been identified with the animal side of human nature - I think for fairly obvious reasons, as it’s associated with simple sensation. What humans exhibit over and above that is the capacity for reflection and understanding. That gives rise to something above sensation which is the capacity for rational thought. So we share sensation and sensory pleasures with other animals, but the rational capacity is unique to us (something which is nowadays contested).

Seems to me that hedonism always wants to avoid this conclusion - to say there’s no real difference between pleasant sensations and eudomonaic happiness (which is the happiness that comes from the pursuit of virtue.) One can, for example, attain happiness in the contemplation of verities, which surely can’t be reduced to sensation alone, and which only a rational mind can entertain.

(All this, I now realise, is rather Aristotelian in nature, which surprises me a bit, but I’m not inclined to want to apologise for it.)

Socrates had spoken of the higher pleasures of the intellect; the Cyrenaics denied the validity of this distinction and said that bodily pleasures, being more simple and more intense, were preferable.

@Wayfarer I’d say that there is no real difference. What is ‘pleasurable’ is just that. To me it seemed to be against some kind of balancing out of some overall ‘pleasure’ and rather looked towards immediate pleasure - which would mean a regard for future pleasure (hence the point about not succumbing to danger desires).

To go further I feel it was trying to stave off an idea of having a certain amount of ‘pleasure’ due in one’s life. Against the possible thought of ‘I’ve had my pleasure, now for serious business!’ ... I would agree that such a thought is quite silly but humans being humans it is a thought because it relies on guilt.

I’m very much in line with what I’ve read of Aristotle. I basically came to a similar conclusion regarding ‘Virtue Ethics’ - but I’d be more inclined to actively seek out and experience ‘pain and suffering’ and to do risk ‘doing wrong’ rather than becoming stagnated and unmoving.

In common speech ‘hedonism’ means nothing more than an unabated pursuit of whatever pleases you regardless of consequences (I was just pointing out that to view it as that is rather simplistic, yet it is a hard idea to shake off given how the term is predominantly used in modern society even when we understand it as something else).

Without a doubt Judeo-Christian heritage has led to a stringer rejection of anything deemed ‘hedonistic’.

One thing for sue. Ethics is a key aspect of modern philosophical discourse and we’re not much further along today than we were several hundred years ago (perhaps we’ve even gone backwards in our understanding in certain areas - so it seems to me).

For anyone to say it is irrelevant to morality must have said so with good reason ... I cannot fathom what that is and will be simply down to their personal understanding of what ‘morality’ means. I can understand the view that the ‘pleasure’ is in the journey, but the ‘pleasure’ is still ‘pleasure’ rather than some cold-reasoned way of living morally that may actively pursue pain and suffering ... — I like sushi

My view:

Something that feels good can be immoral, and something that feels bad can be moral.

So whether something feels good or bad does not seem to determine whether something is moral or immoral.

That isn't to say that living morally cannot feel good. It simply is not relevant to it.

@Tzeentch Agreed. That isn’t how I interpreted the question though :)

To me you’ve just said that whether it feels good or bad is relevant but that it isn’t conclusive evidence of what is or isn’t good or bad. How can we talk about morality without considering what feels good or bad (for me, you or anyone else).

Far too much nuance that can be levered into the questions. I’d be surprised if anyone holds anything like a strongly differing opinion on what constitutes good and bad.

How can we talk about morality without considering what feels good or bad (for me, you or anyone else). — I like sushi

With reason, I suppose. The senses will simply have to follow.

The pleasure/pain system in our bodies is so deceptive, I don't think it can serve as a useful guide.

I don't think it can serve as a useful guide. — Tzeentch

A guide to what? That is, in trying "make things good", what is it that you're trying to do... if not ensure that nobody's suffering and everyone enjoys life?

Sometimes, it is moral to speak truth to power, for example . One usually gets crucified; it is usually not of any great utility. Sometimes what is moral is a losing strategy. "Greater love hath no man than this..."

One might say that pain and unhappiness are symptoms, and immorality is a disease. One might say it is infectious.

Sometimes, it is moral to speak truth to power, for example — unenlightened

To what end, if not to (set into motion or contribute to some movement to) get said power to behave differently, in such a way that said power hurts less (inflicts less suffering) or helps more (enables more enjoyment)?

A guide to what? — Pfhorrest

Moral conduct, starting with me, an individual.

Moral conduct — Tzeentch

What makes conduct moral, if not refraining from hurting people (not inflicting suffering), and helping them (enabling enjoyment)?

To what end, if not to (set into motion or contribute to some movement to) get said power to behave differently, in such a way said power hurts less (inflicts less suffering) or helps more (enables more enjoyment)? — Pfhorrest

If I play the lottery, the end is to become rich. If I tell the truth, the end is that the truth be told. I suggest that this is a strong sign of the moral act, that the act itself is its end. You may hear it, or not hear it, but the truth has been spoken.

The way it seems to me, we need to unpack happiness/suffering to get to the heart of utilitatrianism - what is it actually about?

Let's survey some things that make us happy/unhappy: a full belly, friends & family, good health, to name a few. What do all the items listed above have in common? It's obvious that they're all prerequisites for survival, not "just" survival but as achieving a state of being able to beget, provide for, rear, defend the next generation (our children) - this I'll call the state of wellbeing and it's linked to the emotion we recognize as happiness. Failure to or loss of the state of wellbeing causes unhappiness/sorrow.

As might be obvious to you now, happiness/unhappiness is all about the state of wellbeing which I alluded to above but in what way exactly? Well, being happy and sad - these two emotions alway succeed in grabbing your undivided attention - are like the LED indicators of a car's gas gauge: green (happy) means all ok, red (unhappy) means something's wrong. This rather crude analogy immediately brings to the fore the actual truth about this entire affair - to focus on the LED indicators (happiness/sadness) whichever of them lights up - is to completely miss the point that they light up only to pass on the message of success/failure in attaining the state of wellbeing and beyond that they're meaningless. It's kinda like the mistake you warned me about a while ago viz. mistaking the finger pointing to the moon with the moon.

To sum it all up, we need to move on/away from what, by my analysis, is a rather superficial understanding, perhaps even a total misunderstanding, of happiness/sorrow which is to think that happiness/sorrow are themselves objectives either to attain/avoid and arrive at the truth that the state of wellbeing is the real goal. With this realization we can perhaps get rid of the go-betweens viz. happiness/sorrow and all the complications/paradoxes/problems/dilemmas that go with them. Just a thought...

What makes conduct moral, if not refraining from hurting people (not inflicting suffering), and helping them (enabling enjoyment)? — Pfhorrest

I can for the most part agree with this idea of moral conduct, however I do not think that those things you named are, in the context of morality, necessarily connected to subjective sensations of pain and pleasure.

I can feed my child all the sugar it wants, and I am sure they will enjoy it greatly, however I would be slowly poisoning them, regardless of their enjoyment.

What makes conduct moral, if not refraining from hurting people (not inflicting suffering), and helping them (enabling enjoyment)? — Pfhorrest

The obvious example is from monotheistic religions: moral is that which is in line with God's commandments. Acting in line with God's commandments can lead to (other) people's happiness or suffering. But making (other) people's happiness or suffering the reference point for what counts as moral or not would be a grave mistake in the context of monotheism.

The Christian references are relevant for our discussion, because we are discussing morality against Christianity's backdrop and within its conceptual framework.

I find myself just flabbergasted at the notion of reckoning something as good or bad regardless of (or even in spite of) whether it makes anybody feel good or bad. — Pfhorrest

Yet it's an idea that can be found in some major religions. Like when Christians say that believing in God and following his commandments has nothing to do with your happiness. In fact, doing the morally right thing is possibly going to or is even supposed to make you feel crappy (a burden you should gladly accept, given the massive sacrifice God has already made for you).

One thing which I think about in relation to the poll question is that it is so easy to become caught up in finding pleasure for oneself and miss the importance of trying to help others find pleasure. In the harshness of life, I feel that I am sometimes struggling to make life bearable, but feel that finding pleasure makes it bearable. However, in juggling this, I try not to lose sight of thinking about my actions just as a way of satisfying my own needs, but I think that it all has to be balanced carefully and mindfully.

The truth usually makes us sad (the bitter truth) and lies seem to be very good at making us happy (sweet, little lies) — TheMadFool

Truth is bitter. Why say that? — TheMadFool

Humankind evolves from ignorance into knowledge over time; and similarly, the individual is born knowing nothing. So in both cases, the lies come first. If the truth is bitter by comparison to the lie - the problem is the preceding lie; not the constant truth.

Any particular truth; that people die, for example - (Kierkegaard identifies death as particularly subject to denial) is but one facet of a holistic truth that offers considerable compensations.

For me, the individual dies but the human species lives on; and if we accepted that truth - we might feel like we belong to something, and start governing in the interests of the human species going forward, and that would be better for every individual.

Instead, I find myself dealing with my impending death, very much alone - to maintain the illusion for everyone else, as a member of a species that is headed for a premature demise, because it lives in a state of denial. The comforting lie has only compounded my sorrows.

Prove the following proposition, a necessity for your worldview:

1. All truths cause happiness

As counterexamples: disease, murder, apathy, corruption, rape, child labor, human trafficking, racism, slavery, discrimination, the list is longer but I'd like to see how you respond to these.

Seems to me that hedonism always wants to avoid this conclusion - to say there’s no real difference between pleasant sensations and eudomonaic happiness (which is the happiness that comes from the pursuit of virtue.) One can, for example, attain happiness in the contemplation of verities, which surely can’t be reduced to sensation alone, and which only a rational mind can entertain. — Wayfarer

But what would justify this difference?

From the perspective of traditional cultures, both the desire for pleasure and the fear of pain are natural instincts that have to be moderated. In Greek philosophy, the appetites were to be subdued by reason which Christian philosophy inherited and modified. In Buddhism, there is an icon of the pig, rooster and chicken chasing each other, signifying want (pig), hatred (snake), stupidity (chicken). I read the other day the definition of asceticism as 'the skilful use of discomfort'. — Wayfarer

We evolved in hunter gatherer tribes that then joined together to form societies and civilisations. In order for society to function; for hunter gatherer tribes to live together - it was necessary to make that implicit morality - explicit; and that's religion. God was employed as an absolute, objective authority - to justify ethics of behaviour that would apply equally to all. This wasn't quite Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - the strong were not fooled by the weak, but rather tribal morality became social morality.

By my definition, hedonism requires the pursuit of my wants, regardless of anyone, or anything else
— counterpunch

I don't think it has to be necessarily that egocentric. I can imagine a hedonistic lifestyle that nevertheless makes room for other's wants. What if you were in a care-giving profession, like nursing or veterinary science, but after hours you were into BDSM? Not hard to imagine. — Wayfarer

I do think so; so maybe we're not talking about the quite same thing. I don't construe all pleasure as hedonistic. That slice of cake with your 11 o' clock cuppa is fine - unless, you're clinically obese and dependent on the state to fund your healthcare. Then, eating cake is hedonism, because - I believe, hedonism must necessarily deny the social responsibility required by religion, (law, economics, politics) or must argue that individual pleasure seeking is a sufficient condition for society.

BTW; all vets are into BDSM. They like to be led around on a leash, and spanked with a rolled up newspaper after work! Every single one of them!

1. All truths cause happiness

As counterexamples: disease, murder, apathy, corruption, rape, child labor, human trafficking, racism, slavery, discrimination, the list is longer but I'd like to see how you respond to these. — TheMadFool

This comes across as reductio ad absurdum, but I can only assume you are sincere - so by elimination, I must suppose you haven't understood my proposition; which is, rather - we'd be happier overall if we all just accepted a scientific understanding of reality, as opposed to the sweet little religious, political and economic lies called ideology.

My proposition is not:

"1. All truths cause happiness"

Instead, I'm trying to get to the disenchantment of someone led to believe wonderful, comforting things - that are almost certainly not true. How then can the believer greet the truth, but with fear, denial and disenchantment?

I merely suggest that if it were the practice to tell the truth from the beginning, people would not live in fear of disillusion, and would not have an antipathy to truth of the kind you express.

Not all truths are pleasant, no; but to me - someone who accepts a scientific understanding of reality, truths are what they are. For me, death of the individual is a necessary aspect of evolution; and the life of humankind is what really matters. For the believer, however, raised to expect eternal reward in the hereafter - death of the soul is a doubly terrible thing to contemplate.

I see. What explains our innate susceptibility to deception of the kind that involves some degree of self-aggrandizement which I interpret as a, probably dangerous, proclivity on our part to build a world of sweet lies in which we happily live out our existence? And one fine day, we come face to face with the bitter truth and our world, the one made of lies, comes crashing down around our ears.

It's not about never having been exposed to the truth as you seem to think. It's about not being able to face it.

I see. What explains our innate susceptibility to deception of the kind that involves some degree of self-aggrandizement which I interpret as a, probably dangerous, proclivity on our part to build a world of sweet lies in which we happily live out our lives? — TheMadFool

The explanation is that the species evolves from ignorance into knowledge, and similarly the individual is born ignorant, and learns as they go along. What I think we have - or rather, what we had until the internet was invented, was a sort of intergenerational deliberate ignorance - that in my view, has severely retarded the development of humankind. It amazes me that not one parent had the courage to send their kid to school, to tell all the other kids that Santa isn't real. But now, I suspect, we have experienced the birth of a generation of parents who are not willing or able to lie to their children - because of the internet, and I suspect that can only be good for humankind.

It's not about never having been exposed to the truth as you seem to think. It's about not being able to face it. — TheMadFool

"Seem to think" is the right term. My understanding is more nuanced than my rough prose manages to convey. I suspect that the religious believer knows, that there are alternative possibilities to that which they choose to believe. They deliberately close their eyes and ears to those possibilities; but implicitly, they must know - or otherwise, it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.

And one fine day, we come face to face with the bitter truth and our world, the one made of lies, comes crashing down around our ears. — TheMadFool

I don't think so. We may become extinct as a consequence of "our innate susceptibility to deception" - but having thought quite a lot about this, and having sought for many years to communicate the potential of adopting a scientific understanding of reality, the world isn't going to trip over the truth and fall into oblivion. I think the truth is coming, and we have to face it. Reality will not be brooked; we will be correct to reality or be rendered extinct, because that's the way the universe was Created!!!

That's an unusual definition then, and not the one this thread is about, an article about which I linked to in the OP. That definition is, shortly put, "what matters, morally speaking, is that people feel good rather than bad, experience pleasure rather than pain, enjoyment rather than suffering", — Pfhorrest

I keep trying to answer your post from 8 hours ago, but then something happens - like someone was responding right now, and I just couldn't get to it. Now I have things to do out in the world. So please don't take this personally, like some sort of snub. It's not that at all. I'll get back to you.

I can feed my child all the sugar it wants, and I am sure they will enjoy it greatly, however I would be slowly poisoning them, regardless of their enjoyment. — Tzeentch

What is bad about being poisoned if not the suffering it causes?

The obvious example is from monotheistic religions: moral is that which is in line with God's commandments. — baker

So like I concluded, the alternative is “because someone said so”.

I keep trying to answer your post from 8 hours ago, but then something happens - like someone was responding right now, and I just couldn't get to it. Now I have things to do out in the world. So please don't take this personally, like some sort of snub. It's not that at all. I'll get back to you. — counterpunch

No worries, I’m never in a rush for a reply, and I have lots of other things sucking up my time too. At your leisure.

Utilitarianism is a kind of hedonism. It's a consequentialist altruistic hedonism. (This poll's two questions are about hedonism yes or no, and if yes, altruism yes or no; I'm not asking about consequentialism yes or not at this point). — Pfhorrest

Seems to me, you're asking the wrong questions on the basis of a misconception of morality and ethics. Morality is fundamentally a sense - innate to the human organism, and ethics are essentially, moral rules that reconcile individual behaviour to the social good.

This is why, I maintain, hedonism must either disregard the social good in the pursuit of individual pleasure - or claim that hedonism is a sufficient basis for the social good. (It isn't; as Socrates explains to Protagoras in Plato's dialogue of the same name.)

Once you start qualifying hedonism - it's not hedonism, because not all pursuit of the good is hedonistic. The greatest good for the greatest number is not hedonism. Take rationing food when adrift at sea, for example. Rationing seeks a utilitarian outcome, but it is in no sense hedonistic. The hedonist would eat all the food, for themselves, now - and not worry about other people or tomorrow. A utilitarian would ration the food equally, and make everyone unhappy.

That's an unusual definition then, and not the one this thread is about, an article about which I linked to in the OP. — Pfhorrest

You complained in the OP about having to reference a text, and now you depend on it???

Ethical hedonism on Wikipedia (because apparently body text is required for a poll). — Pfhorrest

That's the entirety of your definition! Consequently, I feel quite free to express my own views on the subject - which begin with an evolutionary conception of morality as a sense, and ethical principles derived from that sense, to reconcile individual behaviour to the social good. Hedonism therefore, cannot be ethical. Hedonism must disregard the social good in pursuit of individual pleasure!

What is bad about being poisoned if not the suffering it causes? — Pfhorrest

What I am trying to point out is that someone's subjective idea of pleasure and pain can vary greatly over time. Eating all that sugar may feel good in the moment, but it will not when one develops an illness because of it. Similarly, physical exercise can feel bad when one is doing it, but be very healthy.

So the premise of hedonism that pleasure and pain determine what is good and bad seems to me inherently flawed. Our senses are simply too easy to fool.

You complained in the OP about having to reference a text, and now you depend on it??? — counterpunch

I wasn’t complaining of having to reference it, but of having to write anything at all. Linking to an encyclopedia article about the subject was just filler text.

In any case, as the person who wrote the questions it’s my place to clarify what I meant by them. If you wouldn’t have used words that way, you do you, but just know that that’s what I was using them for, and don’t take them to mean something else in that context.

Our senses are simply too easy to fool. — Tzeentch

My point is: How do we know they have been fooled except by further use of them? Yes, any one particular experience may not tell you the whole picture, but the whole picture is still the sum of all the experiences: