Take the 2-minute tour ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hedonism (Wikipedia):

Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).

Altruism (Wikipedia):

Pure altruism is giving up a value (a reward or benefit) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).


Consider this:

X who dies to save Y's life is a hedonist because knowing that Y will live brings X more pleasure in the remaining time of his life than living a life without Y. This is even more clear if Y is in the same position as X, if Y is thinking the same thing as X.

  • Are X and Y true hedonists? Are they also altruists?
  • Do altruists really get nothing in return for their actions?
  • Is there such a thing as "not being a hedonist"?
  • Is altruism also a form of hedonism?

We could say that the only difference between people regarding hedonism is how much of a rational hedonist someone is. What I mean is that someone might not do something because he/she beliefs that doing it will bring him/her greater pain while in reality doing it will bring him/her greater pleasure.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I reject your premise: X doesn't die to save Y's life because X gets pleasure from doing so (how could a dead agent experience any kind of pleasure?). X dies to save Y for some other reason, believing in some other good: duty, doing the right thing...

I think you are confusing pleasure with what might be called "utility". Economists model rational agents as utility maximisers and there is a sense in which you cannot fail to maximise utility, because whatever actions you perform can be rationalised by ascribing you some particular attidtude towards the goods in question. For example, people gamble even when their expected monetary gain from the gamble is negative (so not betting would maximise monetary gain). How is this rational? 'Well,' says the "revealed preference" economist, 'the gambler must get some utility from the act of gambling itself such that that outweighs the potential loss...'

To bring this back to "not being a hedonist": things other than pleasure can motivate us. To people sign up to the army because the get pleasure from the horrors of war? Of course not. They enlist because they are motivated by their sense of duty, for instance. Now, to say that they get pleasure from doing their duty is to distort the meaning of "pleasure" beyond recognition.

share|improve this answer
    
I had a wrong understanding of what pleasure is, e.g. I thought a feeling of duty and honor is also pleasure. Thanks for explaining! –  usr Jun 20 '11 at 14:04
    
@usr actually, your understanding of pleasure is correct. Feeling pride in one's actions is not utility, it's pleasure. The fun of gambling is pleasure, not utility. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216058 –  philosodad Jul 17 '12 at 18:35
    
@usr - I believe you're right here. I don't want to downvote Seamus, as I think his answer is useful (and represents one side of this discussion) - I just feel that it's inaccurate. The other answer to this (IMO) offers an accurate explanation. –  Ryno Nov 15 '12 at 15:10

X and Y are hedonists. They are not altruists. Though X gave up the value of their life they gained the value of knowing that Y would live. Even if this value may only be experienced for a short period of time before their death, X traded a lesser value for a greater value. Only X may determine the values for X.

Altruists, by definition, don't get anything from their actions. In fact, they must also lose something (give up a value) in order for an action to be altruistic.

There is such a thing as not being a hedonist. I'd argue that hedonism, especially the notion of "rational hedonism" that you describe in your closing, are necessary biological traits of all organisms. However, there is a proposed personality disorder called "self-defeating personality disorder". I agree with your statements on rational hedonism.

Altruism is not a form of hedonism. Acts commonly mislabeled as altruistic are, most often, examples of hedonism. By definition the altruist must give up value and receive none in return. Even feeling good about a sacrifice, as X experiences in your example, is a value that the proposed altruist would receive. This disqualifies X's actions from being classified as altruistic.

The terms you've chosen carry strong connotations. Hedonism, and even "pleasure", are commonly associated with immediate gratification as opposed to the long-term best interests of the individual.

Altruism is generally held as a positive and so often people will overlook the benefits they receive in order to consider themselves altruists. Ironically this self-satisfaction is the very value that disqualifies the act from being altruistic.

Pleasure, removing the connotations, is defined as "the broad class of mental states that humans and other animals experience as positive, enjoyable, or worth seeking" Wikipedia.

A gambler may derive pleasure from playing the game, enjoying the company at the table, possibly winning money, or many other things associated with the gambling experience. These are the values the gambler stands to gain from gambling. If the gambler determines that these are of greater value than simply possessing the money he is likely to lose (the value he must trade), he is a hedonist.

A soldier may take pride in serving their country or "doing their duty". Surely feeling pride is "positive, enjoyable, [and] worth seeking". Experiencing the horror of war is not the value a soldier gains but the price the soldier pays. If the soldier deems the pride they feel in service is more pleasurable than the "horrors of war" they must experience to feel that pride, the soldier is a hedonist.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks @user2692 - this is exactly what I came to say - I've often puzzled this myself. –  Ryno Nov 15 '12 at 15:08
    
Interesting; it strikes me as perhaps a bit odd describing a soldier as a hedonist, even if they do take pride in service; they risk not just experiencing "horror," but are actually risking life and limb for something greater than themselves. Is this not textbook altruism? –  Joseph Weissman Nov 15 '12 at 15:31
    
@JosephWeissman, no doubt the term "hedonist" is a bit awkward here. That's why I spent some time going into the connotations of the terms. Would popular culture call it altruism, probably. But it doesn't fit the definition. You said "for something greater than themselves". If that is the actor's determination then they have received a value they deemed more valuable "than themselves" and clearly fall into hedonism. –  user2692 Nov 15 '12 at 21:18

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.