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? — baker
all vets are into BDSM. — counterpunch
Let's survey some things that make us happy/unhappy: a full belly, friends & family, good health, to name a few. — TheMadFool
iBuddhists agree with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nirvāṇa. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in. — Nyanoponika Thera
How do we know they have been fooled except by further use of them?
— Pfhorrest
We don't — Tzeentch
Other things are relevant, such as future outcomes/consequences (I.e. long term health vs. short term gratification). — Pinprick
pleasure (or excessive pleasure perhaps) often leads to pain. So if what is meant by hedonism is to blindly pursue pleasure/avoid pain, then I disagree with that, and would advocate for something like “rational hedonism” where the consequences of pursuing pleasure/avoiding pain are considered prior to acting, and potential unwanted consequences are weighed against potential desirable ones. — Pinprick
Eudomonia in Aristotelian philosophy is linked with virtue and with fulfilling your life's purpose (telos). — Wayfarer
And what is good about some consequences, about some state of the world, besides everyone feeling good, nobody feeling bad? — Pfhorrest
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. — 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!) — Pfhorrest
Is it everyone's pleasure or pain that's relevant, or only some people's / your own? — Pfhorrest
Evolutionary biology is intended to provide an account of the origin of species. Evolutionary rationales of religion, music, and other aspects of human culture are too often just so stories. — Wayfarer
That is all within the domain of what I mean. Hedonism can be far-sighted or short-sighted. If the long-term consequences you’re concerned about are still all about whether you will be suffering or enjoying life in the future, then that’s still a focus on feeling good or bad, pleasure or pain, etc; it’s just a smart way to do so, that doesn’t shoot itself in the foot. — Pfhorrest
Aristotelian philosophy generally is teleologically oriented - things have a purpose, a telos, which is the basis for what is considered good - being able to fulfil that purpose is a criterion of what is good — Wayfarer
What is purpose but what something is good for, what good comes as a consequence of it? — Pfhorrest
Is there a box I can tick for that? — counterpunch
But we need more than that, some criterion by which to tell what something's purpose is, what effects of it are good. What is that criterion besides comforting/pleasing/helping rather than hurting? — Pfhorrest
I get your point but what's the alternative? We have to place "religion, music, and other aspects of human culture" in an evolutionary context, because evolution is undeniably true. — counterpunch
Then how do we know that there is any reason to doubt them?
— Pfhorrest
Hopefully one wisens up to this fact as they grow up, through their experiences and gathered knowledge. — Tzeentch
Experiences of what? Knowledge of what? That something felt good at first but later lead to greater suffering? That’s information from your senses again, telling you that your earlier senses didn’t give you the full picture. — Pfhorrest
7. 1. [1177a11] But if happiness consists in activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be activity in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the virtue of the best part of us. Whether then this be the Intellect [nous], or whatever else it be that is thought to rule and lead us by nature, and to have cognizance of what is noble and divine, either as being itself also actually divine, or as being relatively the divinest part of us, it is the activity of this part of us in accordance with the virtue proper to it that will constitute perfect happiness; and it has been stated already* that this activity is the activity of contemplation — Nichomachean Ethics
Sensory experiences combined with our reasoning faculty, where the latter can provide us with an understanding the sensory experiences cannot. — Tzeentch
it has been stated already* that this activity is the activity of contemplation — Nichomachean Ethics
Not everything about human kind is determined by biology. When we evolved to the point of language, reason, and even (dare I say) spiritual transcendence, then we're no longer definable in purely biological terms; we've 'transcended the biological' is how I put it. And I absolutely don't buy Dennett's ultra-darwinism. He, Dawkins, and several others, personify the tendency of making a religion out of evolution -not in the sense of seeking transcendence through it, but by regarding it as the definition of human possibility. That's as much a consequence of Enlightenment rhetorics than of science as such. — Wayfarer
If you think it ought to be morally relevant to some kind of super perfectly ethical person, some saint or hero, even though you personally (like pretty much everyone) fall short of that, then I'd say that's answer #1 to the second question. — Pfhorrest
Is it everyone's pleasure or pain that's relevant, or only some people's / your own?
1. Everyone's is relevant
2. Only some people's / mine is relevant
3. Nobody's is relevant (I said "no" above already) — Pfhorrest
I think you'd be forced to conclude it makes more sense to extend your idea of evolution, than to suggest some supernatural explanation. — counterpunch
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts.Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense. 1 — Richard Polt
I think such experiences and reasoning can tell us many things that are both true and good for ourselves. — Tzeentch
I didn't invoke the existence of a "super perfectly ethical person" - and I could not answer your question for such a person, if I had! — counterpunch
there's no-one who would like to answer "1. Everyone's is relevant" more that I would, but I can't — counterpunch
I don't want to fall into the science v religion dichotomy. — Wayfarer
My view is that when h. sapiens evolved to the point of being language-using, meaning-seeking beings, those capacities aren't meaningfully viewed through the prism of evolutionary biology. It's an over-reach, due to the fact that evolutionary biology has displaced religion as the kind of 'arbiter of meaning'. But, as I say, that's not it's function, even though that's exactly how the Dennett's and Dawkins treat it. — Wayfarer
This is germane to the OP also, as viewing ethics through the lens of biology can only ever yield some form of utilitarianism. And that's because there's really only one criterion for success in evolutionary biology, which is successful propogation. Any other kind of end is out of scope for the theory. — Wayfarer
I'm having a very difficult time, pinning down exactly what you mean by "evolutionary biology has displaced religion as the kind of 'arbiter of meaning'" — counterpunch
And you think evolution cannot have programmed a behaviourally intelligent moral sense into human beings. — counterpunch
So what? Jane Goddall also mentioned that there were frequent murders, infanticide, cannibalism, and so on.Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. — counterpunch
This second bit here is why I mentioned the super-person the first bit is about. It sounds to me like you’re saying that if you were a better person, you would care about everyone more than you in fact do; thus, that your idea of what a good person would answer is 1.
I bring that up because what I’m asking about is what you think the morally correct answer is, not just what you’re personally emotionally motivated to act on. Like, if you could be a better person, however you conceive “better” to be, what do you conceive that that better you would care about? And it sounds like you conceive that it would be 1. — Pfhorrest
What I mean is that evolutionary biology, and science in general, now provides the kind of background guide to what intelligent people should believe - in the same way that religious culture used to in times past. — Wayfarer
I don't subscribe to your reading of history viz a viz the Trial of Galileo but it is too large a topic to argue in a forum such as this. — Wayfarer
If it were programmed, you would expect it to be uniform. Birds, after all, build nests pretty much exactly the same way every time. Instinctive behaviours are very minutely prescribed. — Wayfarer
The point about the human situation is that humans get to decide, in large part, how they should live and what they should do. That gives a huge scope to possible outcomes, signified by the vast range of cultures and behaviours and societies. Our choices are under-determined by our biological descent. Sure, biological descent plays a role , no disputing that, but other factors come into play for h. sapiens, new horizons of the possible appear. — Wayfarer
I would merely ask three questions:
1. Was Galileo tried for heresy?
2. Was that because he made scientific discoveries that contradicted Biblical orthodoxy?
3. Why, around 1635, did Descartes withdraw his treatise on physics from publication? — counterpunch
We are capable of appreciating facts, and understand, instinctually, that those facts have moral implications — counterpunch
Just not buying. This is exactly what I mean by the over-extension of biological evolution to explain faculties which it has little or nothing to say about. Yes, humans evolved, but we can then choose an enormous range of ethical postures, from the diabolical evil to benevolent humanism - all with the same genetic base.Morality is primarily a sense, fostered in the human animal by evolution; — counterpunch
And on the question of why Descartes withdrew his paper - I studied Descartes as an undergrad, wrote a term paper on him, but never encountered this question, can you provide some references for it. — Wayfarer
In any case, the conclusion you draw is in line with the conflict thesis. It’s something which is widely assumed but simplistic, in my view. — Wayfarer
The upshot is, I don’t accept the ‘science versus religion’ conflict in the black-and-white terms in which you’re attempting to depict it. — Wayfarer
I agree with your remarks elsewhere that science is indispensable for saving the planet from climate change. But let’s also not loose sight of the fact that science has developed the means to destroy everything on the planet a thousand times over. — Wayfarer
science has developed the means to destroy everything on the planet a thousand times over. — Wayfarer
Indeed we can, but I’m arguing that this ability is only partially explicable with respect to evolution. It’s not ‘instinctIve’ but culturally imbued in us. Bridging in the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ is something human beings often fail to do, both collectively and individually. I’m sure guilty of that. — Wayfarer
I'm dumbing it down for you - and you still got it wrong! — counterpunch
let's see if you can get this outline argument. Don't be confused by the lack of detail. We can do the colouring in later! — counterpunch
where did culture get morality from? A burning bush perhaps? — counterpunch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.