My support for hedonism

[Spockrates]

We can still continue on with the current argument. One more thing here. I notice that there are waits every time I make a reply before you respond. If it is because you are waiting for me to finish editing my posts or waiting for me to reply, then you don't need to wait and I will simply point out any new edits I have made in my replies instead. I also reply pretty fast most of the time so you don't have to wait on that either. But if you are waiting because you are busy elsewhere, then I have no objections against that.

OK, thanks. I'm the opposite. I often edit my posts a few minutes afterward.

 

[Spockrates]

So let us see how far she will go:

1. our minds are wired in such a way that when we have a good thought about something, then that sends a pleasure signal to the brain which then gives us the experience of pleasant emotions.
2. Our minds are wired to send these pleasant emotional signals, because we need those pleasant emotions
3. We need pleasant emotions because they define our actions, thoughts, and lives as being good, valuable and worth living to us.
4. Our thoughts and such (our logical thinking part of our brains) are not all that is needed to live a life that is good and worth living,
5. without our feelings of pleasure, it is all nothing more than just the "thinking" experience

It is said among logicians that a logical argument is like a chain in that it is only as good as its weakest link. The link here I think could use some strengthening is premise (3).

We need pleasant emotions because they define our actions, thoughts, and lives as being good, valuable and worth living to us.
​

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand a tenet of hedonism is, "If it feels good, one should do it!" and (3) seems to be making this inference to me. Since pleasant emotions feel good, they should be considered the most important thing that is good, valuable and worth having to us.

Is this the idea behind the premise? If so, I'll let you know why I don't yet find it convincing.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

The idea behind premise 3 is saying nothing more than if you derive feelings of pleasure from something, then that makes that thing good and worth living to you. That is all. It does not state any logical course of actions that should be taken based upon that. The logic part of our brains is nothing more than something used for problem solving and survival. It does not define our lives as being good and worth living. Our thoughts would be something good to us if we derived feelings of pleasure from them. But since there is no moral (logic) version of good and bad since only our feelings of pleasure and suffering themselves make our lives good and bad, then there is no moral decision that one should make based on our feelings of pleasure or suffering.

 

[Spockrates]

The idea behind premise 3 is saying nothing more than if you derive feelings of pleasure from something, then that makes that thing good and worth living to you. That is all. It does not state any logical course of actions that should be taken based upon that. The logic part of our brains is nothing more than something used for problem solving and survival. It does not define our lives as being good and worth living. Our thoughts would be something good to us if we derived feelings of pleasure from them. But since there is no moral (logic) version of good and bad since only our feelings of pleasure and suffering themselves make our lives good and bad, then there is no moral decision that one should make based on our feelings of pleasure or suffering.

I can understand that. Instead of saying, "If it feels good, do it!" we shall in this case say, "If it feels good, it's worth doing and valuable to do, and whether or not it is moral has nothing to do with its value or worth for our lives." For we are talking about the effects our thoughts, words and deeds have.

I suppose, then that hedonism is different from egotism, which states that whatever benefits a person most is what is moral, even if what benefits herself does not benefit anyone else.

Rather than a moral philosophy, I suppose hedonism is simply an observation of the human condition. Don't you think?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I will go ahead and state one more very important thing here. There is a feeling version of good and bad and there is a moral version of good and bad. The moral version of good and bad does not exist for us. Only our feelings of pleasure and suffering make our lives good and bad. So good to us would instead be defined as our feelings of pleasure while bad to us would be defined as our feelings of suffering. But you then might say to me that I would then be attributing a moral value judgment to those feelings in saying that they are good and bad. Therefore, you might then say to me that the moral version of good and bad does exist then. But this is false.

If I were to have the thought right now that the sun is up in space and consists of hydrogen and helium, then that would be a scientific fact. However, that would not be a moral value judgment I would be making here. That would be me simply stating a scientific fact. Therefore, me saying that feelings of pleasure are good while feelings of suffering are bad, that is not a moral value judgement I am making. It would be a scientific fact. So good and bad would be scientific here because they would be functions of our brains. They would be our experience of pleasant and unpleasant feelings in our minds.

 

[Spockrates]

I will go ahead and state one more very important thing here. There is a feeling version of good and bad and there is a moral version of good and bad. The moral version of good and bad does not exist for us. Only our feelings of pleasure and suffering make our lives good and bad. So good to us would instead be defined as our feelings of pleasure while bad to us would be defined as our feelings of suffering. But you then might say to me that I would then be attributing a moral value judgment to those feelings in saying that they are good and bad. Therefore, you might then say to me that the moral version of good and bad does exist then. But this is false.

If I were to have the thought right now that the sun is up in space and consists of hydrogen and helium, then that would be a scientific fact. However, that would not be a moral value judgment I would be making here. That would be me simply stating a scientific fact. Therefore, me saying that feelings of pleasure are good while feelings of suffering are bad, that is not a moral value judgement I am making. It would be a scientific fact. So good and bad would be scientific here because they would be functions of our brains. They would be our experience of pleasant and unpleasant feelings in our minds.

Then your ultimate question here is not, "Should I go on living?" Is it? Seems to me that as soon as you say, "Should I..." or "I should..." you are taking about what choice is best to make. To me, deciding what to say, think about or do is morality. But are you saying such choices for you are not moral but are instead something else?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

You are right. They are not moral. They are something else. It is just how our brains function that if we have no good value or worth in our lives, we will find no reason to live. Therefore, since only our feelings of pleasure and suffering make our lives good or bad, then the scientific truth is that we should find no reason to live without our feelings of pleasure. People who do find reason to live are only fooling themselves. This whole situation would be no different than if people thought the Earth was flat today and I told them that you should think the Earth is a sphere since this is a scientific fact.

 

[Spockrates]

...

 

[Spockrates]

...

 

[Spockrates]

You are right. They are not moral. They are something else. It is just how our brains function that if we have no good value or worth in our lives, we will find no reason to live. Therefore, since only our feelings of pleasure and suffering make our lives good or bad, then the scientific truth is that we should find no reason to live without our feelings of pleasure. People who do find reason to live are only fooling themselves. This whole situation would be no different than if people thought the Earth was flat today and I told them that you should think the Earth is a sphere since this is a scientific fact.

OK, so let's consider this: You are high on acid when I find you standing on the edge of a roof of a tall building, wearing a cape you made from a sheet. The cape has a big red H drawn on it. You've also drawn one on your bear chest, and are shouting as loud as you can, "I am Hedonist Man!"

You look like you are about to fall to your death, so I ask you to come down.

"No!" you shout.

"Why not?" I ask.

"Because I can fly!"

"Dude, you can't fly," I try to reason with you, "Come down, please before you get hurt!"

"No!" you cry, "I CAN fly! I know I can, 'cause it feels right. Not flying feels wrong."

Would you say there is nothing bad about your trying to fly, since you feel so good about taking this leap of faith?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

You would be right in saying that there would be nothing bad.

 

[Spockrates]

You would be right in saying that there would be nothing bad.

So a life trying to fly high, only to die is worth living?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

This is correct. Even though I would view that as a bad thing logically and would avoid that situation in order to instead live on for other things that are healthy and would give me pleasure, the fact is that I would only be fooling myself into thinking it is bad when it really is not.

 

[Spockrates]

This is correct. Even though I would view that as a bad thing logically and would avoid that situation in order to instead live on for other things that are healthy and would give me pleasure, the fact is that I would only be fooling myself into thinking it is bad when it really is not.

Well, you wouldn't be a fool for long!

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Now at that moment when I am deriving pleasure from being high on the rooftop in that situation you gave to me, it would be something good right then and there. However, the future pain that would be inflicted upon me would be something bad. So at the moment, my life would be good. But once the pain is inflicted upon me, then that moment would be bad for me. But as for the logical reasoning that links those two situations in which you can either avoid the situation or go through with it, that decision (thought) is neither good or bad for us. It is only the feelings of pleasure and suffering that make our lives good or bad.

 

[Spockrates]

But I think you are right in saying what reason tells us is bad our emotions might tell us is good. I guess the question to as ourselves is this:

Who is a better guide to live our lives by? Wisdom or Emotion? In the example of Hedonist Man, who would make his life better? Emotion who gleefully giggles in his ear: "Jump, silly. It will be fun!" Or Reason who pleads him, "Don't jump! Listen to reason! If you jump you won't have any pleasurable emotions again."

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

But here again, what we are referring to as good or bad is simply the feelings of pleasure and suffering themselves. We are not referring to any decisions as being good or bad here. Actually, it would work out like this. If you felt good about the decision of falling off the roof and harming yourself, then that would be a good decision for you. But as for whether you should go through with that decision or not, there is no moral good and bad telling you whether you should go through with that decision or not.

 

[Spockrates]

But here again, what we are referring to as good or bad is simply the feelings of pleasure and suffering themselves. We are not referring to any decisions as being good or bad here. Actually, it would work out like this. If you felt good about the decision of falling off the roof and harming yourself, then that would be a good decision for you. But as for whether you should go through with that decision or not, there is no moral good and bad telling you whether you should go through with that decision or not.

Actually, I'm asking: What good is more likely to result in the one about to jump obtaining a life of more pleasure? The logical good or the emotional good?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

There is no logical good. It is only the feelings of pleasure and suffering themselves that define our lives as being good or bad at the given moments when we have the feelings of pleasure or suffering. Even though I could say that if you were to live on experiencing more pleasure in life rather than foolishly cause yourself pain and suffering, that this would be a greater life overall for you. However, at this exact moment I am having that thought right now, that thought is nothing good or bad to me since I am neither feeling pleasure nor suffering from it right now.

 

[Spockrates]

OK, let's use the word beneficial, or likely, then. Let's say he started to listen to reason and realized he wanted to live, so he might enjoy the pleasure of tomorrow. But in his intoxicated state, the thought of not jumping brought him no pleasure. Let's say the guy about to die is in perfect health and has all the power and money to fulfill any pleasure he desires.

What is more beneficial or likely to result in a life of more pleasure? A few seconds in free fall fun, or years of hedonistic bliss?