Hedonism bad for society? Do we owe society? Hedonists = low life?

[ThePoetSappho]

I was discussing hedonism with someone and he basically argued that
1. being a hedonist i. e. being self serving, if it feels good do it, etc. is being a low life, and that people OWE society.
2. As a woman specifically i should have children and raise a family for the sake of society and if I want to spend my life NOT having kids but living my own life and having fun, i'm also a low life.
Discuss?

[standingseated]

I think you owe it to society to openly live free. Because everyone wants to live in a free, open society.

[Tsurugi_Oni]

You owe it to yourself to do exactly what you want. If having children and entertaining society helps you reach your goals in life, go right ahead. If your life doesn't need to fancy those things, then live the 2nd path.

We're not bees in a colony serving the queen, but we can group together when it benefits us.

[Cherea]

That would depend on whether it's bad for individuals in society.

[Karen_J]

people OWE society

For what? You didn't ask to be born. You didn't pick where you were born, or when. You didn't agree to any kind of a deal.

Control freaks need to get the fuck over themselves.

[DharmaBum]

For what? You didn't ask to be born. You didn't pick where you were born, or when. You didn't agree to any kind of a deal.

Control freaks need to get the fuck over themselves.



You owe "Society" for the standard of living you enjoy, the relative safety in which you enjoy it, the safety nets in place (Social welfare, healthcare etc. etc.) Quite a few things actually. If you feel it has done nothing for you, you're incredibly deluded.

Hedonism and individual self interest are bad for Society when the amount of people participating in it reaches a critical mass and the society can no longer sustain itself.

[standingseated]

I think I need to go to some place like Hedonism II or III or Sea Mountain Inn, or just some place where everyone is naked and getting it on right in front of God and everybody and see how I like it.

I'm not sure. I read a review on tripadvisor that said that no one at Hedonism III ever got out of the pool to pee, ever. That's not cool at all. That much hedonism is not cool.

[Jimmy P]

As long as you're not affecting their precious society in an adverse manner, it's okay.

To say that by not having children you're doing the world anything but a favor, is just ignorant. If only more people could be so selfless.

Contribute something if you can, but at the very least don't be detrimental to society, and all will be well.

Peeing in the pool should be mandatory, but it's much better in the ocean.

[Karen_J]

You owe "Society" for the standard of living you enjoy, the relative safety in which you enjoy it, the safety nets in place (Social welfare, healthcare etc. etc.) Quite a few things actually.

I do my job, and I pay my taxes. That's the way it works.

[shorty_27]

What do you or anyone else owe to this profoundly sick society? If anything, society owes us a fuck of a lot more than we owe it.

As long as you aren't hurting someone or damaging their property, who cares what you do. I am sick of people being persecuted because they don't want the government making decisions for them.

Why is someone who seeks pleasure a "low life"? Isn't that the point - to be happy? Being subservient, bored, and unhappy shouldn't be part of any society. You get what you give, and society has given me nothing but persecution, alienation, and incarceration. Live your life. Fuck society.

[ThePoetSappho]

I do my job, and I pay my taxes. That's the way it works.



hell yeah.

[neodude1212]

If part of your hedonism includes some aspect of society, then yeah, you are a part of society and should be have as such.

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Society is Hedonism

Just that there is one act for in public, another for in private

Half the time control freaks are just covering their own tracks so no one gets suspicious

[neodude1212]

not much hedonism in my 9-5 how bout you?

[Jimmy P]

not much hedonism in my 9-5 how bout you?
A little, but no, not really :(

[DharmaBum]

I do my job, and I pay my taxes. That's the way it works.



That's how income tax works, yes.... are you suggesting paying taxes is society? we're talking about two different things here.

[sunfighter]

I'm not sure. I read a review on tripadvisor that said that no one at Hedonism III ever got out of the pool to pee, ever. That's not cool at all. That much hedonism is not cool.

When I went to Hedonism in Negril, Jamaica, and spent four hours naked in the pool, I heard something even worse.

I heard that all a woman had to do to get pregnant was to get into the pool! :(

No, none of the sperm was mine.

[standingseated]

i heard that all a woman had to do to get pregnant was to get into the pool! :(



oh my dear god, no!

[Karen_J]

Society is Hedonism

Just that there is one act for in public, another for in private

You've got it figured out. :cheers2:

.... are you suggesting paying taxes is society? we're talking about two different things here.

Most of the stuff you listed earlier is a function of government. Paid for by taxes.

I heard that all a woman had to do to get pregnant was to get into the pool! :(

I only swim in the ocean at those places.

[standingseated]

I only swim in the ocean at those places.



um...fish fuck in it.

[Karen_J]

um...fish fuck in it.

I'll take my chances. ;)

not much hedonism in my 9-5 how bout you?

One of the weird, paradoxical things about life is that when you combine intelligence, education, and life experience with hedonism, you often end up doing a lot of the same things that tradition and old-fashioned morals tell you to do.

Like, for example, stealing. If you don't break into my house because you think it's wrong, and you think god is going to punish you for it, that's great for me because my house doesn't get broken into. If I don't break into your house because I think there's a good chance I might get caught and I don't want to go to jail, you get the same benefit. It doesn't really matter to you why I decided not to do it.

I think this pattern works because a lot of the old rules evolved from common sense and life experience. The big problem is that facts often change, and traditional values are very slow to adjust. Like, masturbation used to be bad for everyone because a lot of people died in wars and epidemics, and you needed a lot of kids to support you in your old age, so everybody needed to be making babies as fast as they could. Now we have world-wide overpopulation, but some churches still say masturbation is a sin.

This is where hedonism works well. I know that fucking myself on a regular basis is not going to cause any problems for me or anybody else. I do it, I enjoy it, and I don't give a damn what any church says about the practice.

Old views on premarital sex go back to the time before condoms, antibiotics, birth control pills, and safe abortions. The facts changed but the morals didn't. My hedonistic perspective has allowed me to enjoy a higher degree of freedom made possible by the changes that have taken place in the medical world. I enjoy safe sex with multiple consenting adults and don't give a flying fuck how people needed to handle this issue 100 years ago.

One of the big problems I have with so-called divinely inspired books is that God seems to be slack about updating them when the key facts change. Hedonism frees my mind to respond instantly to the latest facts in a world that changes every day.

Even when I decide to handle something the same way that a conservative person would, I feel better about it because I reached the conclusion by using a logical thought process that I respect, rather than letting a bunch of dead people think for me and threaten me with fairytale punishments from the sky.

[Karen_J]

I think I need to go to some place like Hedonism II or III or Sea Mountain Inn

Don't forget the Dutch side of St. Martin. Not as loud as some of the other party islands, but it's still the only place I have ever seen a couple fuck on the beach in front of their kids. The kids paid no attention. I guess when you grow up being used to seeing something that doesn't personally interest you (before puberty), it gets really boring.

What do you think about New Orleans? No American city celebrates hedonism and depravity more. Besides its legendary love for flashing and public drunkenness, the bartenders openly sell drugs, nearly all the strippers are prostitutes, and random people routinely fuck on the sidewalks of the side streets off Bourbon Street. On the other hand, it is a very dangerous and dysfunctional city. Maybe that is an unavoidable consequence of mixing that much hedonism with real life.

Your thoughts?

[lunarverse]

I was discussing hedonism with someone and he basically argued that
1. being a hedonist i. e. being self serving, if it feels good do it, etc. is being a low life, and that people OWE society.
2. As a woman specifically i should have children and raise a family for the sake of society and if I want to spend my life NOT having kids but living my own life and having fun, i'm also a low life.
Discuss?

Fuck having a family. Man if you don't want to don't. You don't have a family because you think you own it to society. To you my friend, I say this...

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/picture.php?albumid=3692&pictureid=33352

We have these buses in the town where I live

[Stabby]

Agreed. Having children because you think you have to to help society is ridiculous. Existence precedes essence. You don't come into the world owing anybody anything or having to do anything at all. The belief that you do is unfounded.

Hedonism isn't inherently good or bad for others. What if you derive great joy from helping people? Yeah it would be really great if everyone HAD to be good, help others and never hurt others, but then that would mean that they didn't have a choice, and they do.

[ThePoetSappho]

in my neck of the woods, if you don't want to pop out crotch dropping, you must be a horrible inhumane person.

[Karen_J]

Having children because you think you have to to help society is ridiculous.

Yeah, it's based on this ridiculous notion that one person can really make a difference in the world. It can happen, but it is rare enough to be statistically insignificant. A typical random group of a thousand people doesn't even make a difference.

This feeling of heavy responsibility is mostly false. Understanding that the world is what it is and you can't do anything about it might be a depressing thought at first, but then you realize that it frees you up to live your own life.

[lunarverse]

in my neck of the woods, if you don't want to pop out crotch dropping, you must be a horrible inhumane person.

I'd move.

[Stabby]

Yeah, it's based on this ridiculous notion that one person can really make a difference in the world. It can happen, but it is rare enough to be statistically insignificant. A typical random group of a thousand people doesn't even make a difference.

This feeling of heavy responsibility is mostly false. Understanding that the world is what it is and you can't do anything about it might be a depressing thought at first, but then you realize that it frees you up to live your own life.

If you think that having a child is a good way to make the world aren't you better you must be mentally handicapped. Having a child doesn't serve anyone except for you. There are thousands of better uses of a senselessly altruisistic person's time.

[Stabby]

in my neck of the woods, if you don't want to pop out crotch dropping, you must be a horrible inhumane person.

Oh god, sounds like Christian bs. Having a child doesn't serve anyone except for you. There are literally thousands of better ways to make the world a better place. Having a child and then condemning those who don't is just what half-wits do to make themselves feel better about their useless lives.

[Venatrix]

One word: Overpopulation. Fuck having kids. Having kids benefits no one but yourself, and even then, only if you want them.

[Stabby]

If I want to have kids even though it hurts society that's fine too. That we have some sort of obligation to do what's good for society or our existence comes with any stipulations is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that other people have to or should do anything is ridiculous. If someone is able to rationalize that by not having kids they're helping others, all the power to them. Conversely if they think that by having kids they're helping others, all the power to them too, however they're delusional and if they tell me that I have to have kids, that's where I draw the line.

Existence precedes essence. For fuck's sake.

[Karen_J]

If you think that having a child is a good way to make the world better you must be mentally handicapped. Having a child doesn't serve anyone except for you.

One word: Overpopulation.

:cheers2: Exactly.

/thread :)

[Stabby]

I'm not even concerned with overpopulation. If not having a child would help society but I wanted to have a child I would have a child. I just think that it's ridiculous and very arrogant to expect somebody to be unrealistically altruistic enough to either have a child when they don't want to or not have a child when they want to. If somebody doesn't do what they want to with their life they've lost my respect. Although the overpopulation argument is a really good one even amongst non existentialists, but I wouldn't use it to rationalize not having a child. There's no need to rationalize following your heart.

[Hoatzin]

I was discussing hedonism with someone and he basically argued that
1. being a hedonist i. e. being self serving, if it feels good do it, etc. is being a low life, and that people OWE society.
2. As a woman specifically i should have children and raise a family for the sake of society and if I want to spend my life NOT having kids but living my own life and having fun, i'm also a low life.
Discuss?

I think there are arguments against hedonism, but those aren't good ones., especially the second one.

[Stabby]

A hedonist can do things that are good for society or others because it brings them pleasure. And a hedonist can keep from doing something that's bad for society because it brings them pain.

Either way they both state that "this is what you have to do because... and or else..." but then never elaborate on what those things are. That somebody should cause themselves needless pain or abstain from pleasure for no good reason is a terrible argument.

[Hoatzin]

That somebody's role is to contribute another mouth to feed "for the sake of society" is likewise pretty stupid. Yes, someone has to do it, but it's hardly a disaster if a few people don't.

[Stabby]

Nobody has to do anything in particular. Worst case scenario there's no more humanity. If knowing that there won't be any more humans doesn't bother you and you don't want children then there's no reason to have any.

[Karen_J]

That somebody's role is to contribute another mouth to feed "for the sake of society" is likewise pretty stupid. Yes, someone has to do it, but it's hardly a disaster if a few people don't.

We're a hell of a long way from needing to worry about that sort of thing. Talk to me about recruiting more mothers when we have a too-small and rapidly shrinking population, not before.

Worst case scenario there's no more humanity. If knowing that there won't be any more humans doesn't bother you and you don't want children then there's no reason to have any.

If that ever happens, I won't be alive to know it, so why should I give a damn? I really don't think about it.

[Stabby]

Heh true that. The only reason to care about how the world is AFTER you die is if you have children.

[Karen_J]

The only reason to care about how the world is AFTER you die is if you have children.

I think of having children as sort of a vote of confidence in the future. If you think the future is going to suck, why force somebody to live through it? There are billions of people who will have to deal with all the terrible shit that is likely to be going on 40 years from now, but it won't be my fault. Nobody will be able to say I'm responsible for their being subjected to all that stuff.

[Hoatzin]

If you think the future is going to suck, why force somebody to live through it?

Because you think they could contribute to making it better?

I think the thing that worries some people, possibly legitimately, is not that people will die out, but that intelligent and/or thoughtful people will stop breeding and (more importantly) raising children. It seems snobbish I suppose, but essentially they're worried that future generations will be raised by assholes and idiots while the nice and smart people are refusing to bring another life into such an awful world or whatever.

[sunfighter]

We are very poor at predicting the future.

[Karen_J]

Because you think they could contribute to making it better?

If people think that, then their math is all wrong. The world doesn't change when one person does something differently. It changes when millions of people do something differently. If government was to require millions of intelligent people to raise more children, or if someone was to write a book or create some other kind of media production that inspired millions of bright people to have more children, that kind of thing could change the mix. One person making a personal decision is nothing. It's like dumping a cup of water in the ocean.

I'll just be blunt for a moment. The world doesn't need more good parents nearly as bad as it needs fewer bad ones. Try running for office on that platform, and see how fast you get pushed into the political grave you just dug for yourself.
:nopity:

We are very poor at predicting the future.

Tell me about it. According to the bullshit that was published when I was a little girl, by now we were all supposed to be going to work every day in little flying saucers. :rolleyes: Robots were going to be cleaning our houses while we watched 3-D television. Is your robot doing a good job?

[sunfighter]

I want a robot very badly. I'm tired of waiting.

[Gedio]

In it's most basic form it's is the realization that there is NO SUCH THING as a selfless good deed. Where that realization takes you is ultimately hedonism.
It's not something many people truly unterstand, if you did you'd see that it's the only way for society to live/

[sunfighter]

I think they understand, and they reject it as false. Like I do. And I'm a hedonist, kinda.

[Stabby]

Could you provide an example if such a deed is possible?

[Stabby]

I think they understand, and they reject it as false. Like I do. And I'm a hedonist, kinda.


That would have to depend on your definition of "selfless". If we all mean a deed performed consciously and out of someone's own volition that benefits another person but doesn't benefit him at all, there is no such thing. That's not to say that helping other people isn't a better idea than being selfish, it's just that it wasn't by definition selfless. However if selfless doesn't entail that he was conscious and acting out of his own volition then it is possible, but that's hardly what is meant by a selfless act, as if an act isn't performed out of one's own volition it can't really be considered meaningful or a reflection of a person's conscious self.

[sunfighter]

There's no sense in arguing. I do not share your dark view of humanity. And what does this have to do with hedonism, anyway?

[Stabby]

You were talking about it before I was so I assumed that you didn't have anything against going off topic.

The fact that you're calling my view dark tells me that you don't even understand it. I say that there's no such thing as a truly selfless good deed where the object benefits but the subject doesn't. The belief that there isn't such thing as a purely selfless act doesn't in any way diminish the value of what would be considered a selfless good deed (ie helping other people and making the world better), it just means that it wasn't purely selfless as the person performing such an action benefited too.

[sunfighter]

No, Gedio started it.

[Stabby]

He started it, then you responded to it, then I responded to you. You were talking about it before I was.

Er, but you're right it doesn't matter and we shouldn't argue about it.

[Gedio]

The fact that every act is motivated by personal pleasure doesn't detract from it's outward value. Charity work, though selfish, is still charity work. Whatever your motivations the end result for those you help is the same, and i doubt they care about why you're there.

His world view isn't dark, it's just brutally honest. A trait seemingly lost in today's society.

[Karen_J]

In it's most basic form it's is the realization that there is NO SUCH THING as a selfless good deed.

Doing a good deed makes you feel better about yourself, so in that sense it isn't entirely selfless.

I don't think this point is a huge deal, but you are technically right.

[Stabby]

What's usually meant by "selflessness" is helping other people and making the world better for only the personal warm, snuggly feelings and the indirect self-benefit associated with an altruistic society. It's not technically selflessness and true selflessness if it were possible wouldn't be worth reverence at all; thankfulness perhaps but certainly not admiration.

[Hoatzin]

If people think that, then their math is all wrong. The world doesn't change when one person does something differently. It changes when millions of people do something differently. If government was to require millions of intelligent people to raise more children, or if someone was to write a book or create some other kind of media production that inspired millions of bright people to have more children, that kind of thing could change the mix. One person making a personal decision is nothing. It's like dumping a cup of water in the ocean.

I'm a bit confused here. You're saying that one person's decision can inspire millions of people's decisions, but then you're saying that one person making a personal decision is meaningless. I mean... that is pretty much what people mean when they say that one person can make a difference. I don't think it's really in dispute.


I'll just be blunt for a moment. The world doesn't need more good parents nearly as bad as it needs fewer bad ones. Try running for office on that platform, and see how fast you get pushed into the political grave you just dug for yourself.
:nopity:

K. I wouldn't say that an idea is bad just because it wouldn't get past the prejudices and conceits of one nation's electorate and political system though. I mean, look at you guys and state health care.

That said, there are plenty of ideal solutions to all the world's problems that would totally work if large chunks of the population didn't find them abhorrent. Ultimately you're trying to make the world better for those people, so if they're really against something, maybe there's something in that.

[Hoatzin]

In it's most basic form it's is the realization that there is NO SUCH THING as a selfless good deed. Where that realization takes you is ultimately hedonism.
It's not something many people truly unterstand, if you did you'd see that it's the only way for society to live/

So when a soldier throws himself on a grenade so that he takes the full blast rather than his whole unit getting enough of it to kill or cripple them, where's the selfishness in that?

I think the idea that there's no such thing as a selfless act works, but only if you're prepared to take reductionism to extremes. e.g. if you feel good as a result of doing something, you've gotten an endorphin reward which, even if only subconsciously, motivates your decision to do good in the first place. Conversely, you may do something which does not make you feel good, but arguably you are still being selfish because you are just trying to prevent yourself from feeling guilty - so you're opting for the best outcome in terms of how good you will feel.

The problem with this is that it renders altruism logically impossible; I tend to be suspicious of arguments like that, because they ignore the fact that we do have a concept of altruism, and that someone who thinks he has proved it does not exist has probably just lost sight of what people actually mean by it. So, for example, I don't think anyone seriously believes that for an act to be altruistic, you can't even feel good about it after the fact.

(I don't want to imply this was something you've said; I just kind of used it as a jumping off point)

[sunfighter]

Yes, well said. I find that the "selfishness is good" argument is logical, but limited, and not a good guide for living. Ayn Rand did not get it right.

[Stabby]

There are two problems with that example. Firstly, we have to decide whether or not a reflex counts. I don't think it does, as the point of "a purely selfless good deed" is that the one doing it did it out of his own volition. Otherwise it's meaningless and doesn't satisfy the moral implications of the phrase.

That and it's only an example of a selfless good deed if a deed can still be selfless even if it would be considered a mistake by the one acting in retrospect. If the solider could take it back and he did, how could that possibly be considered selfless? If he chose to live (or die) with his choice, he also would have served himself by preventing himself the pain that would be caused. It wasn't the result of conscious deliberation and he regretted it, and if he didn't regret it, he was serving himself.

Considering both of those points such a deed could hardly fit your romantic view of exemplary, purely selfless actions. It would be tainted by selfishness.

[sunfighter]

Give it up, Stabby. Your answer is so rationalized that it sounds like a fundamentalist preacher explaining why every last word in the Bible is literally true. Sorry, I know in your universe it makes sense that every Medal of Honor winner should give it back, but I sure don't buy that.

[sunfighter]

Karen, come back. We need you to get us back on track.

[Stabby]

Give it up, Stabby. Your answer is so rationalized that it sounds like a fundamentalist preacher explaining why every last word in the Bible is literally true. Sorry, I know in your universe it makes sense that every Medal of Honor winner should give it back, but I sure don't buy that.

Just because it sounds rationalized and like a fundamentalist preacher to you doesn't make it an invalid argument. You're currently committing the logical fallacy called ad hominem.

[sunfighter]

I am a sinner.

[sunfighter]

I need Karen so bad.

[Stabby]

I am a sinner.

You're needlessly hostile to me for no good reason other than perhaps the standpoint I'm debating from threatens your beliefs so you attack me instead of the argument itself. Confirm/Deny.

[Hoatzin]

There are two problems with that example. Firstly, we have to decide whether or not a reflex counts. I don't think it does, as the point of "a purely selfless good deed" is that the one doing it did it out of his own volition. Otherwise it's meaningless and doesn't satisfy the moral implications of the phrase.

Do you not believe in the subconscious? Because it's been more or less proven that people do think things without knowing that they are thinking them.

That and it's only an example of a selfless good deed if a deed can still be selfless even if it would be considered a mistake by the one acting in retrospect. If the solider could take it back and he did, how could that possibly be considered selfless? If he chose to live (or die) with his choice, he also would have served himself by preventing himself the pain that would be caused. It wasn't the result of conscious deliberation and he regretted it, and if he didn't regret it, he was serving himself.

I've re-read this a few times and I honestly have no idea what it is you're trying to say.

Considering both of those points such a deed could hardly fit your romantic view of exemplary, purely selfless actions. It would be tainted by selfishness.

I don't have a romantic view of exemplary, purely selfless actions. What I am saying is that the word "altruism" is a label for an abstract concept, and that the word means whatever the concept is, not the other way around. Trying to prescribe a rigid definition of an abstract concept is like trying to count to infinity.

In this case, we are working to a definition of altruism that would never be practically applied outside of a debate about altruism - one where we tweeze out any possible source of cognitive consonance to "prove" that an action was not selfless - and in that sense we are wrong in trying to assert that the word has a meaning which it does not commonly hold.

If it is impossible for any action we conceive as being selfless to be "truly selfless" by our high standards, then the term "altruism" becomes meaningless. Clearly the word "altruism" is not meaningless, because people use it and readily understand it. So it is reasonable to assume that it does not refer to this mythical "true selflessness", but instead refers to an action that is extremely unselfish relative to other actions.

So for example, when someone sacrifices himself in a "lives of the many, lives of the few" stylee, he may be jacking off furiously with the smug sense that he is being SO FRICKING ALTRUSITIC RIGHT NOW, BITCHES, and that may by a rigid definition render his action non-selfless and thus non-altruistic. But the effect is the same - great benefit to everyone else, significant detriment to him what with the death and all - and I'm pretty sure it's the effect that altruism refers to, since the term significantly predates the common acceptance of the concept of the subconscious.

[Hoatzin]

You're needlessly hostile to me for no good reason other than perhaps the standpoint I'm debating from threatens your beliefs so you attack me instead of the argument itself. Confirm/Deny.

As a fairly impartial observer, you're definitely the one being needlessly confrontational.

[Stabby]

That's a good post. I'll admit that I was trying to define too abstract and broad a concept. I agree that there is such a thing as a "selfless act" by denotation, you gave an example, but such an act isn't the sort of act I had in mind. The one I had in mind takes into account the common connotations of the phrase.

The issue that I'm discussing is the moral implications of selflessness. There are connotations that go with "selflessness" as a moral code. That people must do what benefits others, even if it doesn't benefit themselves in the least. And if a deed isn't performed out of one's own volition then it can't be considered a moral or immoral act. I believe in the subconscious, however in the theories that you've alluded to, Freud's psychic determinism for instance, everything we do we do for a reason, and that reason is always in pursuit of what we truly desire (whether it turns out to give us what we desire or is successful is unimportant, it's the motive that matters). So if the action is a result of pure pavlovian conditioning, a reflex borne out of combat training, it can not have any moral meaning, and if it is an act of the subconscious, it is serving oneself.

Having said that, you did come up with a definition of selflessness in a normative context. Doing what's good for others because everyone doing what's good for others ultimately benefits oneself the most, either in a worldly, material way or in emotional gratification. And in that sense I think that "selflessness" is more commendable than selfishness most of the time, and certainly a better ethical belief for myself. Although that's a matter of personal opinion and no longer in the realms of objectivity.

[Stabby]

As a fairly impartial observer, you're definitely the one being needlessly confrontational.

I'm just trying to have a debate so as to reinforce my understanding of the topic. You can call it being confrontational but it's hardly the personal hostility that I was referring to.

[Hoatzin]

Having said that, you did come up with a definition of selflessness in a normative context. Doing what's good for others because everyone doing what's good for others ultimately benefits oneself the most, either in a worldly, material way or in emotional gratification. And in that sense I think that "selflessness" is more commendable than selfishness most of the time, and certainly a better ethical belief for myself.



That is always problematic though. "What's best for others" varies massively from person to person. At times, many of us could admit to being at a total loss as to what is even best for ourselves, but that aside, what I think is best for you is almost definitely going to be wrong.

I suppose this would also be a good time to bring up Adam Smith, who asserted that mutual selfishness ultimately leads to a favourable equilibrium. While I have no idea how you'd go about it, it would be interesting to see if mutual selflessness and mutual selfishness ultimately lead to the same result. I don't think they would, but I think that neither would be destructive.

[Stabby]

It's definitely problematic. It would be very arrogant to tell other people what's best for them without sufficient expertise regarding the issue, and mean it honestly. Those of us who are not so arrogant find ourselves trying to convince others that they would be better off being altruistic in our own self-serving pursuit of a society in which everyone is altruistic. Even that pursuit is problematic for many because there still exists the problem of to what extent altruism benefits us and how altruistic we should be. Everyone could be MORE altruistic but for most there comes a point where their level of altruism becomes a detriment. Then the simplest answer becomes to attempt to derive that warm, smug happy feeling from it, but not everyone can derive such a feeling from altruism and it would become a self-deluding exercise of double-think. Not that this particularly bothers me. Albert Camus did state that life is unfair, imperfect and absurd and that the only way to get over it was to embrace that absurdity, become the existential hero and so forth.

As for Adam Smith, he believed in the inevitable "trickle-down" effect and if the trickle-down is true then it's only the one who owns the means of production that should be selfish. Workers demanding pensions and unions would then be pernicious to the system and such actions would have to be discouraged and it would become the responsibility of the workers to take any crap that the boss throws at them because "it's in their own interest". So what was seemingly completely selfless, even if it was harmful to the worker would actually be selfishness. The idea, whether or not he was right is too ridiculous to be put into practice in real life so we're left wondering. Perhaps that could conduct an experiment...

[Karen_J]

Karen, come back. We need you to get us back on track.

I've missed you too, baby. ;)

You're needlessly hostile

My goodness, you guys really have been getting wound up! And longwinded too!

:chillpill: Don't forget the first rule of Hedonism. If it isn't fun, you aren't doing it right. :reddevil:

I generally avoid longwinded philosophical discussions of Hedonism because I think it should come naturally to people. On the other hand, the point about falling on the hand grenade was very thought-provoking. I have two theories about it.

When a soldier falls on a grenade to save his buddies, he doesn't have time to think about anything. It is a pure reaction that comes from deep inside. It comes from everything that he is, as a person. If a lifetime of caring about others and putting others first has made him feel better about himself, then it has changed his core thinking, and he is only being consistent. There is no time to question or rethink the philosophy in the heat of the moment.

Or maybe it is a rare example of true selflessness. Either way, it isn't something that comes up in your normal life. I'm not sure that it tells us much about day to day thinking. You only die once, so the rest of your life is about something else.

I'm a bit confused here. You're saying that one person's decision can inspire millions of people's decisions, but then you're saying that one person making a personal decision is meaningless. I mean... that is pretty much what people mean when they say that one person can make a difference. I don't think it's really in dispute.

You think everybody understands that? I need to move where you live. :rolleyes:

K. I wouldn't say that an idea is bad just because it wouldn't get past the prejudices and conceits of one nation's electorate and political system though. I mean, look at you guys and state health care.

That said, there are plenty of ideal solutions to all the world's problems that would totally work if large chunks of the population didn't find them abhorrent. Ultimately you're trying to make the world better for those people, so if they're really against something, maybe there's something in that.

There's a big difference between a bad idea and a worthless idea. It would be great if morons stopped having children, but I'm not going to waste any more time on an idea that has no chance of seeing the light of day.

Do you really think that the masses know what is best for them? Don't get me started on that subject. Half the time I don't know what I need to be doing, and I know a hell of a lot more than I used to. Like somebody else said, predicting the future is hard.

I'm not a proponent of having someone else do all the thinking for the masses. I'm in favor of trying to teach people to think for themselves, without cultural and religious bullshit baggage. Less personal freedom means less hedonism.

[sunfighter]

:-*

[Gedio]

So when a soldier throws himself on a grenade so that he takes the full blast rather than his whole unit getting enough of it to kill or cripple them, where's the selfishness in that?

I think the idea that there's no such thing as a selfless act works, but only if you're prepared to take reductionism to extremes. e.g. if you feel good as a result of doing something, you've gotten an endorphin reward which, even if only subconsciously, motivates your decision to do good in the first place. Conversely, you may do something which does not make you feel good, but arguably you are still being selfish because you are just trying to prevent yourself from feeling guilty - so you're opting for the best outcome in terms of how good you will feel.

The problem with this is that it renders altruism logically impossible; I tend to be suspicious of arguments like that, because they ignore the fact that we do have a concept of altruism, and that someone who thinks he has proved it does not exist has probably just lost sight of what people actually mean by it. So, for example, I don't think anyone seriously believes that for an act to be altruistic, you can't even feel good about it after the fact.

(I don't want to imply this was something you've said; I just kind of used it as a jumping off point)

Selflless? Hardly. his choices are to save others or not. He could stand there and save himself, but the guilt he would have to live with when he knew he could would be overbearing. He choses to sacrifice himself, because that is the more pleasurable option mentally than living with guilt. self-serving, not selfless.

Plus soldiers are a bad example, they're trained not to think in situations like that. Or any situation really, the best soldier is one who is incapable of independent thought.

You can re-word things as much as you like, but the fact that you have to do that proves that there is no selfless good deed.

[Hoatzin]

Selflless? Hardly. his choices are to save others or not. He could stand there and save himself, but the guilt he would have to live with when he knew he could would be overbearing. He choses to sacrifice himself, because that is the more pleasurable option mentally than living with guilt. self-serving, not selfless.

The situation is one where he dies or everyone does (including him), but yes, that is the example. And I think it opens up an interesting point, that we're as much motivated by the desire to limit our own discomfort as to increase our own pleasure. It blurs the line between hedonism and "normal" life.

But this is purely academic - by this point, we are a long way from what anyone actually means when they say "selfless" or "altruism", or "hedonism", for that matter. Hedonism in most people's minds doesn't just mean the absence of selflessness, but to a far more specific specific range of self-indulgence. I guess you could argue that all of those people are wrong to think that, but I can't see as there'd be much point.

You can re-word things as much as you like, but the fact that you have to do that proves that there is no selfless good deed.

Actually no, it just proves that we're using a definition of selflessness that is reductionist to the point of absurdity. To some, selflessness and altruism might refer to a state that is fundamentally unattainable. However I think it more likely that they just believe it to be acts devoid of obvious, direct selfishness, and ponder the ironies when they feel like it.

To put this more simply, you would not refer to someone who threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his unit as "selfish". The fact that his actions were not selfless to the nth degree does not prevent a real-world label of selflessness on the act, because selflessness is a relative state.

To put this even more simply:

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1562.png

[Stabby]

As I illustrated, there are two definitions of selflessness. There is true selflessness where one's good deeds aren't intended to be in one's own interest, which doesn't exist. And then there's the more common definition in which one helps others in the hopes that they will reciprocate, for the warm, fuzzy feelings, or because of the delusion that a higher morality commands them to.

That brings us to the next question, is the latter something you would consider to be laudable? Of course most people would praise such behavior outwardly because someone's altruism benefits them, so they want to reinforce the person's behavior and create a society of altruism. That or they're reinforcing the strength of their own reinforcers when they do altruistic acts.

I'm currently undecided. I can't see that as being something to praise except on a superficial level for one's own benefit. But that might not be such a bad thing.

[Hoatzin]

As I illustrated, there are two definitions of selflessness. There is true selflessness where one's good deeds aren't intended to be in one's own interest, which doesn't exist. And then there's the more common definition in which one helps others in the hopes that they will reciprocate, for the warm, fuzzy feelings, or because of the delusion that a higher morality commands them to.

I'd say you've got

1) Total altruism - probably non-existent
2) Actions unmotivated by any reward
3) Actions unmotivated by material reward

I think it's unwise to lump 2) and 3) together. Reductionism is pointless if it ceases to tell you anything about reality.

[Stabby]

Could you give an example of number 2? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

[Gedio]

I'd say you've got

1) Total altruism - probably non-existent
2) Actions unmotivated by any reward
3) Actions unmotivated by material reward

I think it's unwise to lump 2) and 3) together. Reductionism is pointless if it ceases to tell you anything about reality.


Why MATERIAL reward? Emotional rewards are just as important.
How can an action not be motivated by reward? Humans have NOT evolved this way.

You have failed to give an example of a selfess deed. When the examples you do give are proven not to be selfless you fall back on your reductionist argument. Anti-proccess anyone?

[jumbuli55]

I was discussing hedonism with someone and he basically argued that
1. being a hedonist i. e. being self serving, if it feels good do it, etc. is being a low life, and that people OWE society.
2. As a woman specifically i should have children and raise a family for the sake of society and if I want to spend my life NOT having kids but living my own life and having fun, i'm also a low life.
Discuss?


Are you talking about "Atlas shrugged"?
It's so 1957.

[Skizm]

Are you talking about "Atlas shrugged"?
It's so 1957.

Shit nigga, that Ann Rand bitch ain't cool no maw.

[Stabby]

I can't be expected to do anything other than what is best for me.

If I have nothing to do on a Sunday and go volunteer at the hospital, I'm being "selfish". I believe in the ideal that everyone helping everyone else yields the greatest good for all individuals, and I'm contributing to a world where this happens. Now if I decided to quit my job and volunteer full-time, and then I became homeless because I couldn't pay my rent and ended up suffering greatly, far beyond the benefits of my volunteer work I couldn't consider myself selfish and I would be foolish.

Another example: I see an old lady struggling with her bags in the grocery store parking lot. I help her out. I'm being selfish. Then I see another and help her out too, I'm still being selfish. Then there's a third old lady, but this old lady wants me to go with her to her house and carry her bags in for her, but doing this, I would miss my guitar lesson. I couldn't possibly be expected to sacrifice my own well-being to help her, there's a limit where it's not beneficial to my ideal and just stupid.

I don't know why people seem to have such a problem with my first statement. Maybe they want others to sacrifice their own well-being to benefit them but don't want to reciprocate. How selfish.

[Gedio]

I can't be expected to do anything other than what is best for me.

If I have nothing to do on a Sunday and go volunteer at the hospital, I'm being "selfish". I believe in the ideal that everyone helping everyone else yields the greatest good for all individuals, and I'm contributing to a world where this happens. Now if I decided to quit my job and volunteer full-time, and then I became homeless because I couldn't pay my rent and ended up suffering greatly, far beyond the benefits of my volunteer work I couldn't consider myself selfish and I would be foolish.

Another example: I see an old lady struggling with her bags in the grocery store parking lot. I help her out. I'm being selfish. Then I see another and help her out too, I'm still being selfish. Then there's a third old lady, but this old lady wants me to go with her to her house and carry her bags in for her, but doing this, I would miss my guitar lesson. I couldn't possibly be expected to sacrifice my own well-being to help her, there's a limit where it's not beneficial to my ideal and just stupid.

I don't know why people seem to have such a problem with my first statement. Maybe they want others to sacrifice their own well-being to benefit them but don't want to reciprocate. How selfish.

Getting something in return for your help and being selfish are NOT the same thing.

[Stabby]

Rand calls her ideal philosophy "selfishness". Her usage of selfishness isn't our common definition. I'm using her "selfishness" which is distinct from the common usage of selfishness. A lot of people don't see the difference. If I said that "I can only ever be expected to do what's best for myself", a lot of people would take issue with that. I just wanted to clarify that Rand's selfishness and the normal definition of selfish aren't the same. The common definition of selfishness implies shortsightedness, that the selfish one really doesn't know what's best for them. Their behavior is harmful to others and they have a narrow worldview where the only good is worldly good done to themselves directly, but we know that that is rarely what's best.