Hedonism
- the pursuit of pleasure as the only intrinsic good, philosophical hedonism
- or simply valuing pleasure
This essay has both in mind.
The argument says that most would not use the machine. There is no way to test whether it would be the majority or the minority.
A hesitation could be a weak basis on which to assume that hedonism is wrong and unnatural. It is not the same as a firm refusal that will never change. Yet hesitation doesn’t necessarily imply weakness or moral judgment — it could stem from prudence, uncertainty, or conflicting values. Treating hesitation as evidence against the moral intuition behind it oversimplifies. It is more of a suggestion.
And what if hedonism is natural for some? Everybody has a hedonist streak somewhere.
If we hesitate, then for how long? Would we use the machine for a year or a decade? If we do that, we are hedonists, for we would reason, “Quality of life is so important. If I can have outstanding quality of life for a year or a decade, it will stand out. A life of pain may be worth it if you can have such a year or decade.” We measure life overall; we take in the whole of it.
Do we hesitate not because we want to live in the real world, but because once you let something deceive you, you may be in danger? You have no guarantee that the fake reality is the only faking that is planned for you.
It is known that the brain tricks us. For example, memory corrupts and reconstructs; it is not a DVD player. Your programming aims for hedonism but misses in the sense that what it thinks is the most pleasure giving may not be. But the intention to be hedonistic is there. We fight for many pleasures, and when we get them, we wonder if we wasted our time. So refusing the machine would prove nothing.
Intuition tells you that a machine giving you pleasure risks happiness, for you depend on it, not yourself. So not using the machine is hedonism but in a controlled way. Reverse hedonism is hedonism - I am not calling everything hedonism, even its opposite. I am saying that in this case reverse hedonism is hedonism. All hedonists take risks, but no hedonist deliberately takes a cocktail of drugs that will grant moments of extreme pleasure but land her on life support.
The anti-machine argument has to be the starting point if you want to find an answer to, “Why should I love God more than myself? Why should I respect my neighbour as I would myself? Why should I give and not seek anything back?” You need hedonism to be wrong — morally wrong. Wrong may mean failing to take the best path, or it may mean morally wrong. But notice the argument says it only seems to be wrong. It is only wrong, then, in the way that looking at the wall all the time instead of the person you are talking to is wrong. It is wrong, but hardly seriously wrong.
Hedonism is definitely not necessarily morally wrong. Moralists are incoherent if they think the argument for morality — that hedonism is wrong — really means it is morally wrong. They just guess that its wrongness is a moral matter. So the argument is window dressing. They may as well ignore the argument and admit, “I guess that morality is real and binding. That’s all I can do.” They won’t, for morally speaking, you have no right to tell anybody what to guess. Your guess is just as good as the person beside you who guesses the opposite. None of this agrees with itself.
I would assert that all the great moralists such as Jesus, Kant and so on despite their arguing and not admitting it were acting from a place of, "Pleasure must not be what it is all about."
Suppose you are strapped up to the machine. And that you know that your parents or child might need you, while it puts you in the land of the fairies. You are not there. The fact remains that you did not cause the harm that happened to them while you were out of reach. That’s debatable it seems — moral philosophers would distinguish causing harm from allowing harm through negligence. Yes but it is not direct negligence. They have to have ways and means of surviving without you.
The hedonist will be lumped with the evildoer, and we are told that the worst evildoer does it in the name of good. Why is that considered to be the worst? Because you don’t like it? So you prefer shameless horror-film-type villainy to a person perhaps murdering babies, saying it is for some good paranormal or supernatural purpose? Perhaps the person thinks the killings fit some good but complicated plan — they help bring it to fruition? You want evil to be obvious so that you can look good by opposing it. If it is more subtle, you cannot halo-shine. You want to deal with evil, but it is too complicated, so you want it over-simplified. If you sense that any given human person, in fact, cares more about pleasure than anything else in its own way, you will fear that they could do harm for the sake of happiness or some other good. Your demonising of the person who harms in the name of good is self-serving.
Finally we must remember that psychological egoism - and egoism ties in with hedonism - is true but not in the extreme form. There is something for me in all that I do.
Major Premise: If an action expresses who I am, then it is partly
about me, even if it benefits another person.
Minor Premise: When I act for another person, my action expresses
who I am.
Conclusion: Therefore, when I act for another person, my action is
partly about me.