Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

In Defence Of Hedonism


SairB

Recommended Posts

One thing I have noted in my recent debates with Catholics is their almost universal and boundless disdain of hedonism as an ethical philosophy.

 

Where I think this comes from - based on my reading and, of course, my own upbringing as a Catholic - is the (what I now believe unwarranted) belief that pleasure and/or happiness, in and of themselves, are not objects; they are not worthwhile in themselves, and can only be justified if they result from the pursuit of 'higher' goals. Furthermore, hedonism is equated, by those who seek to roundly condemn it, as the mindless pursuit of 'pleasures of the flesh', and is supposed to lead to all kinds of profligacy, including rampant sexual exploits, gluttony, drink, drugs and rock'n'roll... ::sigh::

 

It would surprise me if most Catholics - or Christians of any stripe, for that matter - had ever seriously studied hedonism as a philosophy, or read and understood the life and philosophies of Epicurus, for example. If they had, I rather suspect they would evince more more respect for the ideas of moderation, intellectual exercise and tranquillity that are central to the hedonist approach to life.

 

The basic belief is that all sentient beings seek that which provides them with pleasure and comfort. I find this a hard notion to dispute. It is a fact of our existence and that of most other animals (one that, perhaps, Epicurus himself did not fully appreciate) that certain pursuits - such as eating and sex - bring us pleasure because we have evolved such that our activities generally allow for survival and reproduction (Epicurus, if I recall correctly, actually advised against the building of family ties, since they were often a source of stress that proved detrimental to the achievement of tranquillity) - we are, when we eat and mate, fulfilling deep-seated urges, and the satisfaction of these urges is undoubtedly a source of pleasure - good in and of itself, regardless of whether we're eating a simple meal of porridge after a long fast, or a delicious gourmet feast; of whether our sexual encounters lead to conception or not.

 

But we, as human animals, are also evolved to be sociable, to be intellectually active - and it should not be forgotten that Epicurus regarded friendship and intellectual interaction as the very highest of pleasures - he advised moderation in the pleasures of the flesh, since overindulgence invariably leads to pain later. A significant part of Epicurean hedonism, indeed, is the intellectual cultivation of pleasure in simple things - sometimes we must learn how to enjoy the life we have.

 

Some would argue that hedonism is inherently self-centred, and that it allows for inflicting pain on others if this brings us pleasure; I would dispute this. Only the perversion - by suffering and brutalisation - of what I believe to be our natural social instincts leads us to take pleasure in the suffering of others. Yes, there are self-interested motives involved in most or even all of our actions - even if these motives involve the satisfaction of doing for others what we would wish done for ourselves. If such actions brought us no pleasure, as empathetic beings, why would we bother, indeed? Pleasure shared is pleasure multiplied, after all.

 

What I find in hedonism is an unassailable ethical philosophy based upon the only criteria that are self-evidently good - pleasure, satisfaction and happiness. What does it matter that these criteria are subjective? What other basis do we have upon which to judge what is 'good'? All the values we hold culturally dear - justice, truth, beauty, peace, fortitude, kindness and so on - what would these be worth if they afforded us no satisfaction, no enduring pleasure? All of our endeavours, be they in art, science, philosophy - what good are they except in that they contribute to our happiness? What other values or experiences do we have, apart from happiness, satisfaction and pleasure, that we may claim to be good by definition? What's more, if life is ultimately, cosmically meaningless (as I believe it is), what other value does it have than that it affords opportunities for subjective enjoyment? For these reasons, I believe hedonism to be the only truly sound basis upon which to build a system of ethics.

 

What do others think?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic belief is that all sentient beings seek that which provides them with pleasure and comfort. I find this a hard notion to dispute.

Ah yes. Uh... Even as I write this I think that I do so because it pleases me. It's hard to dispute. However, I'm also being highly suspicious of my motives for writing here.

 

It seems to me that hedonism must be tempered with wisdom or something, but who will claim this wisdom? It's a conundrum I think. Wendyshrug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Ecclesiastes be somewhat hedonistic? Since there is no perceivable purpose to life, one might as well enjoy their work, food, drink, relationships, and do good?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Ecclesiastes be somewhat hedonistic? Since there is no perceivable purpose to life, one might as well enjoy their work, food, drink, relationships, and do good?

Now that's interesting. I had never looked at Ecclesiastes from that perspective. I like the book a lot, and that adds a new twist. Thanks Eugene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I many have to read Ecclesiastes as well! Who'd have thunk that the Bible could furnish a hedonistic treatise? Interesting...

 

As for hedonism requiring wisdom...well, I guess it has to, in the sense that temperance is necessary for the continuance of pleasure; overindulgence in most things leads to the loss of pleasure, after all. Having said that, however, this would seem to be the kind of wisdom one could only acquire through experience...

 

Does this suggest that there are 'higher' goods than pleasure and happiness? I am inclined to think not, still, but that is so far only my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

One thing I have noted in my recent debates with Catholics is their almost universal and boundless disdain of hedonism as an ethical philosophy.

 

The basic belief is that all sentient beings seek that which provides them with pleasure and comfort. I find this a hard notion to dispute. It is a fact of our existence and that of most other animals (one that, perhaps, Epicurus himself did not fully appreciate) that certain pursuits - such as eating and sex - bring us pleasure because we have evolved such that our activities generally allow for survival and reproduction (Epicurus, if I recall correctly, actually advised against the building of family ties, since they were often a source of stress that proved detrimental to the achievement of tranquillity) - we are, when we eat and mate, fulfilling deep-seated urges, and the satisfaction of these urges is undoubtedly a source of pleasure - good in and of itself, regardless of whether we're eating a simple meal of porridge after a long fast, or a delicious gourmet feast; of whether our sexual encounters lead to conception or not.

 

What do others think?

Hedonism has the same problem ultitarianism can have. Bernard Williams according to wiki came up with it.

 

Say your a motorist in london dealing with a parking problem, according to ultitarian ethics your allowed to start killing people to fix your parking problem, because you can see the most good done in fixing the parking problem, and any cost can become less in pursuit of a gane.

 

We do not, in fact, judge actions by their consequences, he argued. To solve parking problems in London, a utilitarian would have to favour threatening to shoot people who parked illegally. If only a few people were shot for this, illegal parking would soon stop; thus the utilitarian calculus could justify the shootings by the happiness the absence of parking problems would bring. Any theory with this as a consequence, Williams argued, should be rejected out of hand, no matter how plausible it feels to argue that we do judge actions by their consequences. In an effort to save the utilitarian account, a rule utilitarian — a version of utilitarianism that promotes not the act, but the rule that tends to lead to the greatest happiness of the greatest number — would ask what rule could be extrapolated from the parking example. If the rule were: "Anyone might be shot over a simple parking offense," the utilitarian would argue that its implementation would bring great unhappiness. For Williams, this argument simply proved his point. We do not need to calculate why threatening to shoot people over parking offenses is wrong, he argued, and any system that shows us how to make the calculation is one we should reject. Indeed, we should reject any system that reduces moral decision-making to a few algorithms, because any systematization or reductionism will inevitably distort its complexity.[12]]

 

http://en.wikipedia...._utilitarianism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this suggest that there are 'higher' goods than pleasure and happiness? I am inclined to think not, still, but that is so far only my opinion.

Well, it seems to me that hedonism could be groovy and adding to this grooviness I think would be a consideration of who "we" are. If my view is one of the Earth and humanity, then it seems that maximizing happiness for ourselves and our distant progeny requires certain "discipline" or self-control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people would not equate hedonism with moderation. They would understand it as meaning doing the pleasurable things you mention to an excessive degree and at the expense of others.

 

The way you present it hedonism sounds reasonable, but personally I don't see it as the foundation for ethics. This is probably because I don't see life as cosmically meaningless or ending when the body dies. Pleasure and happiness are temporary but the consciousness continues. I hold compassion, understanding and a sense of honor as high values and I don't really believe someone who is a hedonist has too much of these values. Then again, I don't think I have ever met someone who identified themselves as a hedonist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people would not equate hedonism with moderation.

Yeah, I think the thing with all these "ism"s is that they invite vulgar interpretation. So some may seize upon hedonism as a means to glorify their decadence and self-absorbtion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I many have to read Ecclesiastes as well! Who'd have thunk that the Bible could furnish a hedonistic treatise? Interesting...

 

IMHO, it and Proverbs are the only two books worth reading.

 

Cool OP Sair. I've never studied hedonism, but I love Epicurus. From your post, it sounds like utilitarianism has its roots in hedonism. No philosophy should be used dogmatically, IMO, but many have much we can learn from and use to make our lives and the world a better place.

 

The catholics and other xians balk merely because they have been brainwashed. The christian meme is unstable and unless you are continually dependent on it, you'll lose interest (what they call backsliding). If what you want and need as a normal human being is evil, then you will always need religion as your remedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say your a motorist in london dealing with a parking problem, according to ultitarian ethics your allowed to start killing people to fix your parking problem, because you can see the most good done in fixing the parking problem, and any cost can become less in pursuit of a gane.

 

I'd argue that's a bastardization of the philosophy that Jeremy Bentham would never suggest.

 

Most modern law has its roots in utilitarianism. JS Mill recognized certain problems with it; mainly that the majority can tyrannize the minority. The solution came in the form of the bill of rights and similar limits on the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood this hatred Christians have towards hedonism. What's so wrong about enjoying life and having pleasure? Do we need to suffer the whole life? I see no sense in that. But, they say if you suffer in this life, you will be rewarded in next. Which is ridiculous. I think the only meaning of life is happiness and we should thrive to achieve it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood this hatred Christians have towards hedonism. What's so wrong about enjoying life and having pleasure? Do we need to suffer the whole life? I see no sense in that. But, they say if you suffer in this life, you will be rewarded in next. Which is ridiculous. I think the only meaning of life is happiness and we should thrive to achieve it!

 

Because, its easier to tell/command people how to live their lives when they claim to know what the ultimate good is. Live and let live means teh gayz can get married, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some way I understand Christians attitude. I mean, not completely, but if everyone would live like they said they should (morally, not dogmatically) there would be no problems on Earth. What do you think about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would argue that hedonism is inherently self-centred, and that it allows for inflicting pain on others if this brings us pleasure; I would dispute this. Only the perversion - by suffering and brutalisation - of what I believe to be our natural social instincts leads us to take pleasure in the suffering of others. Yes, there are self-interested motives involved in most or even all of our actions - even if these motives involve the satisfaction of doing for others what we would wish done for ourselves. If such actions brought us no pleasure, as empathetic beings, why would we bother, indeed? Pleasure shared is pleasure multiplied, after all.

 

I've noticed that some of my lingering issues from christianity is that the christian ethics I was raised with started with a very bad assumption: all humans are psychopaths. Original sin supposedly means that even when you think you are being good, you are really being evil. Therefore, you have to follow this random set of rules, whether they make sense or not, in order to be a good person and please god.

 

I think that sort of ethical system might work for a psychopath. If the only reason you're not hurting others is because they'll hurt you back, then believing in a good and just god up there with a big stick is good for society. The problem is when christianity tells empathetic social animals that they don't really care about about each other and demands we develop empathy by following a set of random rules. That's why I let people walk all over me for so long; I tried to be more empatheic and "nice" than I am by nature. I also lost my innate sense of justice and ethics because I was trying so hard to follow an ethical system that had a limited set of nonsense black and white rules and no consistent guidelines for how to handle the grey areas.

 

So yes, I do think that for humans with a healthy level of empathy, hedonism can be a pretty good ethical system. I knew someone who's guiding rule in life was to do what made him happy, and one thing that made him happy was seeing the people around him being happy. So it worked well for him. I think I sometimes fall back on a form of hedonism as a way to ballance setting boundaries (doing things that are necessary for my own mental health even if it's not what other people want me to do) with wanting to be generous and make other people around me happy. Because I am empathtic and absorb the emotions of those around me; their happiness can be quite literally my happiness.

 

It's also nice to be able to do nice things for other people without feeling guilty that I'm mostly doing it becasue it makes me happy. I got the impression from christianity that the most moral form of charity is the kind that you do out of a sense of obligation even though you don't want to do it (and yet "god loves a cheerful giver"), or that you should give first because giving is good, and your happiness should only be a side effect of being on god's good side. I've actually sometimes had trouble giving to charity because I'd feel guilty for the "selfish" warm fuzzies I'd feel after doing so.

 

Don't know enough about hedonism as a whole to say whether or not I'd consider it a good/sufficient ethical system, but it does have some good points.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's interesting what you said. I also felt this way. Christianity views people as very bad who need to be scared to behave, but if you look more closely, there are not so many people like us. Most of them would really lie, cheat, steal and murder if there wasn't no jail or religion (not only psychopaths). I think. Just look at all the wars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say your a motorist in london dealing with a parking problem, according to ultitarian ethics your allowed to start killing people to fix your parking problem, because you can see the most good done in fixing the parking problem, and any cost can become less in pursuit of a gane.

 

I'd argue that's a bastardization of the philosophy that Jeremy Bentham would never suggest.

 

Most modern law has its roots in utilitarianism. JS Mill recognized certain problems with it; mainly that the majority can tyrannize the minority. The solution came in the form of the bill of rights and similar limits on the majority.

 

 

I agree. When the argument involves an unlikely scenario designed to twist the philosophy to make it seem to support evil, that's a bastardization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people would not equate hedonism with moderation. They would understand it as meaning doing the pleasurable things you mention to an excessive degree and at the expense of others.

 

It seems that there were hedonists prior to Epicurus who pretty much did this - the Cyreniacs, I believe...? They were very much focussed on the indulgence of sensual pleasures, and tended towards the worship of gods like Dionysius/Bacchus (of course!)

 

The way you present it hedonism sounds reasonable, but personally I don't see it as the foundation for ethics. This is probably because I don't see life as cosmically meaningless or ending when the body dies. Pleasure and happiness are temporary but the consciousness continues. I hold compassion, understanding and a sense of honor as high values and I don't really believe someone who is a hedonist has too much of these values. Then again, I don't think I have ever met someone who identified themselves as a hedonist.

 

Epicurean hedonism was indeed far more moderate than what most people associate with the word 'hedonism' these days. Much of that view of hedonism was fostered by the hate-campaign waged against the Epicureans by the early Christian scholars, in fact. Even the word 'epicurean' these days has connotations of over-indulgence in fine food!

 

But Epicurus recognised the paradox inherent in the pursuit of pleasure - it is indeed possible to have too much of a good thing, and the consequences tend towards the opposite extreme. Consequently Epicurus advised moderation and the enjoyment of simple things - simple food, the company of good friends. He also recognised that our other values are inherently bound to our subjective experience of pleasure - "It is impossible to live pleasantly without living honourably and justly; it is impossible to live honourably and justly without living pleasantly."

 

Epicurus did believe in gods, but believed them to be indifferent to the affairs and experiences of humans. He did not believe in an afterlife, though. Indeed, it could be argued that belief in an afterlife is actually merely an extension of the belief in deferred happiness, the idea that peace and tranquillity are something to work towards - only in this case, it's deferred until beyond the boundaries of lived experience. For Epicureans, tranquillity and peace of mind were - and are - goals for this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would argue that hedonism is inherently self-centred, and that it allows for inflicting pain on others if this brings us pleasure; I would dispute this. Only the perversion - by suffering and brutalisation - of what I believe to be our natural social instincts leads us to take pleasure in the suffering of others. Yes, there are self-interested motives involved in most or even all of our actions - even if these motives involve the satisfaction of doing for others what we would wish done for ourselves. If such actions brought us no pleasure, as empathetic beings, why would we bother, indeed? Pleasure shared is pleasure multiplied, after all.

 

I've noticed that some of my lingering issues from christianity is that the christian ethics I was raised with started with a very bad assumption: all humans are psychopaths. Original sin supposedly means that even when you think you are being good, you are really being evil. Therefore, you have to follow this random set of rules, whether they make sense or not, in order to be a good person and please god.

 

I think that sort of ethical system might work for a psychopath. If the only reason you're not hurting others is because they'll hurt you back, then believing in a good and just god up there with a big stick is good for society. The problem is when christianity tells empathetic social animals that they don't really care about about each other and demands we develop empathy by following a set of random rules. That's why I let people walk all over me for so long; I tried to be more empatheic and "nice" than I am by nature. I also lost my innate sense of justice and ethics because I was trying so hard to follow an ethical system that had a limited set of nonsense black and white rules and no consistent guidelines for how to handle the grey areas.

 

So yes, I do think that for humans with a healthy level of empathy, hedonism can be a pretty good ethical system. I knew someone who's guiding rule in life was to do what made him happy, and one thing that made him happy was seeing the people around him being happy. So it worked well for him. I think I sometimes fall back on a form of hedonism as a way to ballance setting boundaries (doing things that are necessary for my own mental health even if it's not what other people want me to do) with wanting to be generous and make other people around me happy. Because I am empathtic and absorb the emotions of those around me; their happiness can be quite literally my happiness.

 

It's also nice to be able to do nice things for other people without feeling guilty that I'm mostly doing it becasue it makes me happy. I got the impression from christianity that the most moral form of charity is the kind that you do out of a sense of obligation even though you don't want to do it (and yet "god loves a cheerful giver"), or that you should give first because giving is good, and your happiness should only be a side effect of being on god's good side. I've actually sometimes had trouble giving to charity because I'd feel guilty for the "selfish" warm fuzzies I'd feel after doing so.

 

Don't know enough about hedonism as a whole to say whether or not I'd consider it a good/sufficient ethical system, but it does have some good points.

 

Your experience sounds so much like mine, VacuumFlux - I can totally relate to that nagging sense of guilt that it was somehow 'impure' if I did good things for other people primarily because it made me feel good too.

 

But isn't this really a reflection of how much Christian doctrine abuses our natural instincts and affinities? These days, I have no qualms about helping people because I know it's what I'd want done for me in the same situation, and actually enjoying the feeling of satisfaction I get from meeting what I now believe to be an inherent need in me as a social animal - to actually be, towards others, the kind of person that I would like to be around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this and I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs (as simple as it is) bears on this subject of hedonism.

 

Here's a picture...

 

Maslow-Pyramid-300x196.png

 

 

Freud asserted that there was a tension between the "id" and the "ego" as both worked towards acheivement of "superego". I would be much more likely to phrase things in terms of physiology. I sometimes take the view that we people are social animals with consiousness.

 

What I'm trying to assert here is that community is encoded into people as individuals because other people are a HUGE aspect of each of our environments as individuals. That is, I think an important aspect of seeking pleasant circumstances and happiness is recognizing and meeting the needs of others because others are a part of who we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hedonism has the same problem ultitarianism can have. Bernard Williams according to wiki came up with it. Say your a motorist in london dealing with a parking problem, according to ultitarian ethics your allowed to start killing people to fix your parking problem, because you can see the most good done in fixing the parking problem, and any cost can become less in pursuit of a gane.

 

Well, as others have intimated, this is most certainly an abuse of the philosophy of utilitarianism (which is based upon a hedonist ethic) primarily because, yes, it is a highly abnormal situation; but secondly, and more importantly, because it utterly fails to take into account the subjective responses of those who witness another person killing people merely because he/she can't find a parking space. When we weigh this in the balance, is the distress a person suffers upon being unable to find a parking space in any way commensurate with the distress the same person (and any other persons) would suffer upon witnessing a person being murdered? Or the ongoing distress they would experience from the awareness that they might, at any time, be shot for violating a parking restriction?

 

We love security - we are wired to do so. We like to stay alive and to feel safe. Minor displeasures are a small price we pay for larger satisfactions - any utilitarian would recognise this. This afternoon, I got rear-ended because I made the split-second decision not to go through a round-about (stupid driver didn't indicate his exit). Yeah, this means my car will probably be written off. But that's a whole lot better than what would probably have happened had the car I braked to avoid (in anticipation only, as it turned out) driven into my side. I'd be, at least, in hospital right now. As it was, no-one was actually injured, so that's a good outcome, in the balance.

 

And that's what hedonism - and by extension, utilitarianism - are all about. Balance. I moderate the amount of food I eat and the amount of alcohol I drink, for example, because what I want is to achieve the optimal level of pleasure - that which will not lead to subsequent pain of the sort that will override the pleasure.

 

I can't recall, at present, exactly where I read this (but will post a link as soon as I find one) but part of the reason for playing the social game is that it actually reduces stress in the long run. We treat others as we wish to be treated, not because it guarantees that they will treat us likewise, but because it reduces the chance that they will see us as deserving of mistreatment. In short, I can't abuse someone else without acknowledging that I have thus given them an excuse to abuse me. Reciprocity is, after all, one of our most deeply-ingrained ethical instincts. Other great apes seem to share this instinct to at least some extent. So to tie this back to the original point, the person who opens fire on those who violate parking restrictions is not so much performing a service that will increase the overall pleasure of the populace in general, but in fact only laying him/herself open to similar treatment, having been recognised as one who will take extreme measures in the face of minor transgressions.

 

I hope this makes sense as an explanation...!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this and I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs (as simple as it is) bears on this subject of hedonism. Here's a picture... Maslow-Pyramid-300x196.png Freud asserted that there was a tension between the "id" and the "ego" as both worked towards acheivement of "superego". I would be much more likely to phrase things in terms of physiology. I sometimes take the view that we people are social animals with consiousness. What I'm trying to assert here is that community is encoded into people as individuals because other people are a HUGE aspect of each of our environments as individuals. That is, I think an important aspect of seeking pleasant circumstances and happiness is recognizing and meeting the needs of others because others are a part of who we are.

 

Well said, sir - we are indeed, I believe, social animals who, for whatever reason, have evolved the ability to recognise - and in some respects, stand apart from, in an analytical sense - our interactions with others, both of our own kind and others. Consciousness can be both a blessing and a curse, to use religious terminology. It allows us to recognise our actions as natural inclinations, but it also allows us to override them in some respects, and thus leave ourselves open to abuse from those who insist that rationality is always the better part of our nature! If we like the company of others, we should revel in it, enjoy it for itself, rather than waste our time speculating upon whether some higher, anthropomorphic power has ultimate intentions for us.

 

Sorry - I indulged in a bit of anti-theist ranting there, but I do think there is some fundamental truth to be found in following our inclinations as we experience them - not blindly, perhaps, but recognising and indulging the pleasure afforded by simple human interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Sair.

 

If we like the company of others, we should revel in it, enjoy it for itself, rather than waste our time speculating upon whether some higher, anthropomorphic power has ultimate intentions for us.

I think we tend to enjoy the company of others because we need them. Who wants the agony of indefinite solitude?

 

We exist right now. And there might exist "people" in some distant future time. But I also tend to believe that those people who survive will have an ever greater tendency to provide a better future (hedonism and hierarchy of need) for their progeny.

 

What I'm trying to suggest is that though there may not be some anthropomorphic deity presiding over human affairs, I think nature itself has a "preference" (selection) for those who ensure continual and pleasant survival. It's kind of tautological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Some would argue that hedonism is inherently self-centred, and that it allows for inflicting pain on others if this brings us pleasure; I would dispute this. Only the perversion - by suffering and brutalisation - of what I believe to be our natural social instincts leads us to take pleasure in the suffering of others. Yes, there are self-interested motives involved in most or even all of our actions - even if these motives involve the satisfaction of doing for others what we would wish done for ourselves. If such actions brought us no pleasure, as empathetic beings, why would we bother, indeed? Pleasure shared is pleasure multiplied, after all.

 

I've noticed that some of my lingering issues from christianity is that the christian ethics I was raised with started with a very bad assumption: all humans are psychopaths. Original sin supposedly means that even when you think you are being good, you are really being evil. Therefore, you have to follow this random set of rules, whether they make sense or not, in order to be a good person and please god.

 

I think that sort of ethical system might work for a psychopath. If the only reason you're not hurting others is because they'll hurt you back, then believing in a good and just god up there with a big stick is good for society. The problem is when christianity tells empathetic social animals that they don't really care about about each other and demands we develop empathy by following a set of random rules. That's why I let people walk all over me for so long; I tried to be more empatheic and "nice" than I am by nature. I also lost my innate sense of justice and ethics because I was trying so hard to follow an ethical system that had a limited set of nonsense black and white rules and no consistent guidelines for how to handle the grey areas.

 

So yes, I do think that for humans with a healthy level of empathy, hedonism can be a pretty good ethical system. I knew someone who's guiding rule in life was to do what made him happy, and one thing that made him happy was seeing the people around him being happy. So it worked well for him. I think I sometimes fall back on a form of hedonism as a way to ballance setting boundaries (doing things that are necessary for my own mental health even if it's not what other people want me to do) with wanting to be generous and make other people around me happy. Because I am empathtic and absorb the emotions of those around me; their happiness can be quite literally my happiness.

 

It's also nice to be able to do nice things for other people without feeling guilty that I'm mostly doing it becasue it makes me happy. I got the impression from christianity that the most moral form of charity is the kind that you do out of a sense of obligation even though you don't want to do it (and yet "god loves a cheerful giver"), or that you should give first because giving is good, and your happiness should only be a side effect of being on god's good side. I've actually sometimes had trouble giving to charity because I'd feel guilty for the "selfish" warm fuzzies I'd feel after doing so.

 

Don't know enough about hedonism as a whole to say whether or not I'd consider it a good/sufficient ethical system, but it does have some good points.

 

5 star post Vacuum! *****

 

I have really enjoyed following this topic. Thank you Sair! Gives me much to think about as I lose the religious rules and gain a freedom in my life that I haven't felt for a very long time. I must be very careful at this stage of the game not to get 'unbalanced' with this freedom. I will admit that I have had the attitude in the last couple of years that it's 'my turn' and it's all about me! Please don't use that against me because I have been a very self-sacrificing 'christian' for many years. But I also know that I do have a problem with 'balance'. When I like something - I want to go all the way with it and I know that I can be 'blinded' at who that might be hurting. This topic has really opened this up for me.

 

This is the most wonderful site for learning...how I appreciate every post and opinion. This helps me on my journey so much......I am so grateful to all of you this morning!

 

I found this you tube and I think this girl really summed it all up for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFs3q3EYR0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.