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

We are very poor at predicting the future.

 

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:

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. Robots were going to be cleaning our houses while we watched 3-D television. Is your robot doing a good job?

 

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

 

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/

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

No, Gedio started it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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