Comments on: The Paradox of Hedonism

By: Hedonist

Hedonist — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:38:23 +0000

K October,

Ethical hedonism is simply the idea that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable and stress is the only thing that is intrinsically disvaluable. There are egotistical hedonists (concerned primarily with their own pleasure) and altruistic hedonists (concerned with everybody’s pleasure).

To empathize with someone is to identify with their emotional state of mind. If all moral decisions were based on empathy alone, one would naturally adopt altruistic hedonism as a world view since the emotional well-being of others (rather than knowledge, preference, autonomy etc.) would be their only concern.

By: payday loans

payday loans — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:12:02 +0000

I am completely impressed with the article I have just read. I wish the writer of spicylifestyle.net can continue to provide so much productive information and unforgettable experience to spicylifestyle.net readers. There is not much to state except the following universal truth: You never know what you’ve got until it is gone. No matter how much it pranced under your nose, wearing nothing but underwear and sticking a banana in its ear, to get your attention. I will be back.

By: K

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:52:34 +0000

nah.

By: cspice

cspice — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:14:30 +0000

K, It seems that you define virtue to be the fundamental good and define virtue to be selfless. The only way I can challenge this is by challenging the validity of these definitions. The problem I see stems from the fact that definitions should never make a statement about reality, they should merely provide labels for concepts and ideas. In this case, the combination of your two definitions makes the statement that “the fundamental good requires selflessness”, which is an assertion that should be grounded in reasoning rather than definition.

Well then, release your identity =)

By: K

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:51:09 +0000

Virtue is more fundamentally good than hedonism because it is Virtue’s nature to be Good (and with that, also selfless).

And you ask why is Virtue entirely selfless: Selflessness is in Virtue’s very definition. It is Virtue’s nature to be selfless otherwise it would no longer be virtue.

In contrast, hedonism seeks all the good in life, but only the good for oneself.

Perhaps we should both gain common ground on the definition of Virtue before we continue in this vain, otherwise there’s no point in continuing.

You’re cute, by the way. =P

By: cspice

cspice — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:42:55 +0000

K, there are some implicit points to your argument which I would like to make explicit. It seems that you suggest virtue is good, and more fundamentally good than hedonism. I must then ask: why is virtue more fundamental than hedonism?

Furthermore you say that virtue is entirely selfless. To this I again must ask: why is virtue entirely selfless?

By: K

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:50:31 +0000

Hedonism in and of itself is fundamentally flawed. It’s living for oneself — living a selfish existence. Each decision is made based on what will and will not cause pleasure or pain for the individual.

Contrarily, certain religions, such as Christianity, are a prime example of selflessness: Living for others regardless of the pain or pleasure it causes.

How can hedonism evoke virtue (which, in essence, is entirely selfless) when you claim that “motivational” and “normative” hedonism are both true?