Hedonism

There are two types

instrumental
goods and intrinsic goods.

of

goods:

Instrumental goods are things that are

valuable
because of the good things they bring
about.

These include things like money,

medicine,
comfortable clothing, shelter,
college degrees, delicious food,
etc.

An intrinsic good is something worth

pursuing
for its own sake; its goodness is selfcontained.
Can you think
intrinsic goods?

of

any

examples

A hedonist would argue that the only

intrinsic
good is happiness (a certain kind of
pleasure).
Happiness is the only thing worth
pursuing for
its own sake.

Hedonism is the view that a life is good

to the extent that it is filled with
pleasure and free from pain.
This is a fairly intuitive view.
This view has been around for a long
time: Epicurus (341-270 BCE)

Hedonism was once (or is sometimes)

referred to as the doctrine of the
swine.
This is because even non-human
animals are capable of experiencing
pleasure. Calling hedonism the
doctrine of the swine was thought to
be an insult to hedonism.
But the hedonist has a response

According to hedonists, there are two

types of pleasure: physical pleasure
and attitudinal pleasure.
Physical pleasures are generally
experienced via bodily sensations.
Attitudinal pleasures are positive
attitudes of enjoyment.

Most hedonists place emphasis on the

latter kind of pleasure because it is
more sustained and, arguably, a
higher pleasure.
Also known as: intellectual or
artistic pleasures (John Stuart Mill).

The hedonist would argue that nonhuman animals are incapable of

experiencing these higher pleasures
those that come from reading a good
book, solving a complex problem,
appreciating art, etc.

Attractions?
Hedonism is largely individualistic: there are many
things that lead to happiness.
The choice is left up to the individual.
It is not a one-size-fits-all doctrine.
It allows for personal authority.
Think of how you feel when someone tells you that
you ought to live your life a certain way

Attractions?
Misery clearly hampers a good life.
Happiness clearly improves it.
The view is intuitive.
The limits of explanation: think about
why you are in this class, right now?

Attractions?
The rules of a good life: certain things
reliably damage our welfare. Things like
substance abuse or addiction rarely improve
our lives or well beingtypically because
addiction tends to lead to suffering.
Happiness is what we want for our loved
ones. Parents typically dont care what you
do with your life as long as youre happy.

Challenges?
Is happiness enough?
Philippa Foots rejection of hedonism:
I recall a talk by a doctor who described a patient of
his (who perhaps had a prefrontal lobotomy) as
perfectly happy all day long picking up leaves. This
impressed me because I thought, Well, most of us
are not happy all day long doing the things we do,
and realized how strange it would be to think that the
very kindest of fathers would arrange such an
operation for his (perfectly normal) child. (FE, 29)

The idea is this: if happiness is all that

matters, then wouldnt we all wish for our
loved ones to undergo the procedure
described?
But clearly we dont wish for our loved
ones to undergo prefrontal lobotomies!
So, there must me something more than
just happiness! (And if thats the case,
hedonism is false.)

Is Foots rejection really a

rejection of hedonism?

The Experience Machine

Originally published in Robert Nozicks Anarchy,
State, and Utopia (1974).
It is a thought experiment meant to show that the
central tenants of hedonism are false; that is,
there is more to a good life than the quality of
our inner experiences.
Nozick asks us to suppose there is a machine to
which we could be hooked up and given
whatever experiences we want.

What else matters?

Why are so many of us reluctant to be hooked
up to the experience machine?
Some answers:
1. We want to do things. Its not enough just to
feel like weve done things.
2. We want to be a certain way. Is the person
in the experience machine courageous,
kind, intelligent, witty, loving?
3. Plugging into the machine limits us to a
man-made reality.

Other Potential Problems:

1. The Paradox of Hedonism: typically,
the harder we try to be happy, the less
likely it is that we will succeed.

Happiness is like a butterflythe

more you pursue it, the more it eludes
you. Be still and let it come to you.

The Paradox of Hedonism in argument

form:
1. If happiness is the only thing that
directly makes us better off, then it
is rational to single-mindedly pursue
it.
2. It isnt rational to single-mindedly
pursue happiness.
3. Therefore, happiness isnt the only
thing that directly makes us better
off. (33)

Is the first premise true?

Bottom Line:
The Paradox of Hedonism doesnt pose
a threat
to hedonism. Instead, it suggests that
aiming
directly for happiness is not a smart
way to get
it. Happiness still might be the only
intrinsic
good.

Evil Pleasures:
Sadism: the tendency to derive
pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering,
or humiliation on others.

Consider Ted:
Ted is a really happy guy. He has a
loving family. He has a good job. He
spends his spare time doing the things
he enjoys doing like fixing up vintage
cars and taking his kids to baseball
games. He donates money to charities
and volunteers for several local nonprofit organizations. He gets along with
nearly everyone that he meets. All
these things make Ted a really happy

Ed:
Ed is also a really happy guy. He too has a
loving family and a great job. Ed also spends
his spare time doing things that he enjoys
doing. But Ed has a secret life. Ed enjoys
kidnapping, torturing, raping, and killing
women. Ed kidnaps, tortures, rapes, and kills
roughly one woman every few months.
Inflicting pain and suffering on one woman
every few months brings Ed as much
happiness and Ted receives from fixing old
cars and going to baseball games.

Ted & Ed:

Ted and Ed are equally happy.
Do we want to say that they are both living
equally good lives?
Do we want to say that Ed is living a good
life at all?
What do you think the hedonist would say?

The Argument from Evil

Pleasures:
1. If hedonism is true, then happiness
that comes from evil deeds is as
good as happiness that comes from
kind and decent actions.
2. Happiness that comes from evil
deeds is not as good as happiness
that comes from kind and decent
actions.
3. Therefore, hedonism is false.

Hedonists reject the second premise:

Happiness that comes from evil deeds
is not as good as happiness that
comes from kind and decent actions.

Good could mean either of two

things:
1. Moral goodness: certain actions or
characters are better than others. It is
better to donate $10 to a charity than to
spend it on recreational drugs. (Whats
good?)
2. Beneficial: certain things are good in that
they benefit people who have them. Just as
$10 is beneficial to a hungry child, $10
spent on new shoes might be beneficial to
me; it is good. (Whats good for?)

Certain actions are morally inferior to others.

But happiness still benefits an individual all
the same; its still good for an individual.
This actually captures our intuitions. We
want Ed to be unhappy; we want his life to
be worse than Teds. But, unfortunately,
thats not the case. No matter the source,
happiness contributes to a good life.
Is this a satisfying response?

Two Worlds (W.D. Ross):

Consider two worlds that contain
identical amounts of happiness and
misery. In one of these worlds, the
people are all virtuous. In the other,
the people are all vicious. Isnt the first
world better than the second?

Two Worlds Argument:

1. If hedonism is true, then any two
situations
containing
identical
amounts
of
happiness
and
unhappiness are equally good.
2. Some such situations are not
equally good; some are better than
others.
3. Therefore, hedonism is false.

How might the hedonist respond?

The hedonist is not concerned with the
goodness of worlds or situations. The
hedonist is concerned with the
goodness of individual lives.

False Happiness:
1. If hedonism is true, then our lives go well to
the extent that we are happy.
2. Its not the case that our lives go well to the
extent that we are happy; those whose
happiness is based on false beliefs have
worse lives than those whose happiness is
based on true beliefs, even if both lives are
equally happy.
3. Therefore, hedonism is false.

The Importance of
Autonomy:
Autonomy: the power to guide our lives
through our own free choices.
Is a happy (but not free) life a good life?
Consider the option of replacing free will
with an algorithm chip thats implanted
in your brain.

Paternalism
someones limiting your liberty
against your will, but for you own
good.
A society of arranged marriages,
forced career choices, antigambling
legislation, and motorcycle helmet
laws might lead to greater happiness
And yet even so, there is something to
regret (36).

Argument from Autonomy:

1. If hedonism is true, then autonomy
contributes to a good life only
insofar as it makes us happy.
2. Autonomy
sometimes
directly
contributes to a good life, even
when it fails to make us happy.
3. Therefore, hedonism is false.

Lifes Trajectory:
A life that begins badly but slowly
improves seems better than a life that
starts out well and just goes downhill.

Trajectory Argument:
1. If hedonism is true, then the overall
quality of a life depends entirely on
the amount of happiness and
unhappiness it contains.
2. The overall quality of life depends
on at least one other factor: whether
ones life reflects an upward or
downward trajectory.
3. Therefore, hedonism is false.