In a world where there’s no real objective meaning, and things like global warming,
income inequality, job security, and more seem to be getting worse,
should we embrace hedonism to live the best life possible?
The term hedonism refers to a family of theories,
all of which obtaining pleasure and avoiding pain play a central role.
In this video, I’ll be exploring what hedonism,
specifically Prudential Hedonism, is and analyzing if it’s the answer to
living the best life possible today. And if it isn’t, what is the answer?
If you liked this video at any point,
please consider giving it a thumbs up and make sure to keep the video playing until the end,
even if it’s on mute, as that helps it rank over clickbait type content.
When you hear most people discuss hedonism, they’re probably referring to what philosophers
call ‘folk hedonism’. A folk hedonist is just someone who lives in the moment,
always seeking pleasure with little regard for their future well-being or others.
I can tell you right now, folk hedonism isn’t the answer to a
life well-lived. If seeking immediate pleasure is considered a good life,
then we should all become drug addicts and live for the next high.
That’s why I’m going to be focusing on a type of hedonism called Prudential hedonism. This theory
holds that all and only pleasure intrinsically makes people’s lives go better for them,
and all and only pain intrinsically makes their lives go worse for them. Prudential hedonism goes
beyond just pleasure in the moment and multiple components to it, including a time element,
meaning it may be best to endure some hardships now, for even great pleasure in the future.
Before I explain if this is a good theory of well-being,
let’s take a moment to go over where prudential hedonism and hedonism, in general, came from.
The first group of people to seriously discuss hedonism were the ancient Greeks,
specifically the Cyrenaics, founded by Aristippus (c. 435-356 B.C.E.). It seems that the Cyrenaics
were skeptics who believed any knowledge we can obtain is just of one's immediate sensation.
They believed pleasure was the ultimate good and everyone should be selfish and pursue immediate
pleasures for themselves. Particularly, we should go for bodily pleasure than mental pleasure, as
these are stronger felt and, thus, more trustworthy.
The Greek philosopher Epicurus expanded upon this idea of seeking pleasure.
He differentiated between two types of pleasures. First, there’s kinetic pleasure or something
you get from satisfying a desire like eating chocolate or drinking wine.
He thought these could lead to the desire for more and in themselves weren’t that fulfilling.
The more we experience them, the more we’ll crave them.
Then there’s katastematic pleasure, which is similar to the satisfaction you feel when
your desires are all met. This is like being at peace and feeling tranquil. Here there’s no pain,
no anxiety, no desire for more of what you just had,
and we should strive in our lives for this kind of pleasure.
This certainly seems like an interesting idea,
but for the most part, Epicureanism and hedonism itself
was unpopular. It really wasn’t explored and expanded upon until the 18th and 19th centuries.
It was Jeremy Bentham that revolutionized the concept of hedonism and made it popular.
He actually argued for several hedonism types,
including those now referred to as prudential hedonism and hedonistic utilitarianism.
In his book Principles of Morals and Legislation,
Bentham argued that happiness was pleasure and the absence of pain and should be considered the
ultimate good. Not only that, but he made hedonism a moral idea with this theory of utilitarianism.
A cornerstone of utilitarianism is the principle of utility or the idea
that an action is good insofar as it promotes happiness or pleasure
for moral agents. One’s actions should not be considered good or bad in-and-of themselves,
but only in reference to their usefulness in achieving happiness.
In other words, the most moral action we can take at all times
is the one that maximizes well-being or good in the greatest number of individuals as possible.
How do we know what action will produce the most pleasure, however?
Well, we can use Hedonic Calculus, or an algorithm Bentham proposed that determines
the degree or amount of pleasure a specific action is likely to cause.
To be included in this calculation are several variables like certainty,
durtiation, intensity, and more.
He believed all pleasures were of equal value,
and there were only changes in duration and intensity which we could calculate.
But, this brought a problem dubbed the pig-problem.
Critics argued that if this is how we calculate well-being,
then the life of a well-kept pig would be better than that of an average human.
So, should we all act like fools and not pursue things like education, literature, or jobs?
That’s where John Stuart Mill, Bentham’s student,
came in. Channeling Epicurius in a way, Mill said that there were
higher and lower levels of pleasure. There are some activities we’ll end up getting more pleasure
from as humans than a pig could ever achieve. For example, we can enjoy a well-cooked meal,
good conversation, etc., on top of all the things a pig could derive pleasure from like eating food.
The pig problem was solved, hurray.
Mill’s form of hedonism could be said to be qualitative hedonism
as it focuses on the quality of pleasure. In contrast, Bentham’s
could be said to be quantitative hedonism as it focuses on intensity.
So is prudential qualitative hedonism the best way to live one’s life?
Should we aim to experience as much pleasure as we can?
Well, there’s some serious criticisms
of it, the main one being that pleasure is not the only thing that contributes to our well-being.
Perhaps this argument was best put by Harvard philosopher
Robert Nozick’s ‘experience machine’ thought experiment.
Nozick asks us if there was a machine called ‘the experience machine,’ something you can plug
your brain into that would simulate the happiest reality possible for you
and you wouldn’t remember you plugged into it would you plug into it?
Think of the Matrix, where we’re entirely disconnected from reality.
According to prudential hedonism, you would want to since you’re experiencing more happy chemicals
like dopamine, oxytocin, and happy feelings during your life. But Nozick says none of us would really
hook up if given a chance, which shows there’s more to life than just pleasure.
We want to do and achieve certain things, he writes, instead of just
experience them. We want to live our real lives and be a certain kind of person,
instead of a blob of matter connected to a device.
After all, we often pick things to experience in life
that don’t give us pleasure over those that do. Like choosing to watch a sad drama over a comedy,
or volunteering at an animal shelter even though it’s hard back breaking work.
These arguments all seem to drive a stake through the heart of prudential hedonism.
So at this point I’m supposed to tell you that hedonism is dead and thanks for watching.
But there may be a saving grace for hedonism.
What exactly were we defining as pleasurable in the first place?
What if hedonism were expanded to include all preferences we have,
like the sad movie or volunteering for example, and not just narrow pleasure?
It seems that, from the very start of hedonism, what we’ve been
defining as desirable and good hasn’t been very clear.
This has ushered in yet another twist in the hedonism tale; a new school of
thought called ‘preference hedonism’ put forth by the philosopher Derek Parfit.
Preference hedonism deserves it’s own video so I’ll cover that
and skeptically examining it as well.
If you liked this video please give it a thumbs up.