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

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.

 

I am a sinner.

 

I need Karen so bad.

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

I've missed you too, baby.

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.

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

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.

 

:-*

 

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.

 

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.

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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