Hedonism

The moral theory, Utilitarianism, is a hedonistic one. That is, it holds that the only thing that is good for a person, as an end, is pleasure. This video lecture discusses Jeremy Bentham's version of Hedonism.

[tgtg]

I am not a philosophy student but I really appreciate his work

[Kris.G]

This channel is criminally underrated.

[auliaaliyev]

Here's my attempt at producing a counter example: It questions the assumption that "pleasure points" remain constant for an activity. Reading used to be an effortful activity for me. It produces a lot of pain (from the effort of understanding and going back and forth to the dictionary to learn unfamiliar words) and little pleasure (of learning a new idea). But the more I read books, the easier it is to derive pleasure from it. I consult the dictionary less and less and generally become better at reading. Now I can derive pleasure with minimal effort from reading. At the beginning I prefered to pet my cat than read. Now, reading becomes one of the sources of my greatest pleasure but I had to choose reading over cat petting for a while.

Therefore, I argue that some activities have more potential pleasure that may be derived if you cultivate it (like poetry)

[sviatoslaviigorevich]

Just found these videos and can't get enough of them. Just wish I knew what the prescribed reading was so I could follow along better.

[enriquetorres-duque]

I have 2 questions.
1. Why does hedonism, and Bentham, value pleasure so much? What intrinsic value does it possess over pain?
2. What is value within an activity? Bentham makes sure to clarify within his argument that any difference between two activities that doesn't take into account their level of pleasure is irrelevant, so how can you measure their value?

[bogdanbuturuga]

One of the most obvious counter examples to hedonism is that people don't like being lied to even if that lie is meant to comfort, to protect you from a painful truth.
A counter argument to Bentham's statement about the push pin game is that reading poetry gives you a lot more pleasure in the long run since it so enriches your eloquence, imagination and understanding of your feelings. All these qualities will lead you to a better, more pleasant life. A push pin game might develop some skills too, but it is structurally less intellectually stimulating than readjusting your sense of reality through plays on words. What I mean here is that hedonism should not be concerned only with how pleasant something feels in the presence of the stimulus, but also ask to what extent a certain feeling is bound to yield pleasure or pain in the future.

[kennethconnally]

I think the poetry vs. push-pin example Bentham himself gives in the quotation is actually a more plausible counter-example than the ice cream vs. dead cat counter-example. I don't think we generally think of eating ice cream as an intrinsically valuable activity; the whole point is to get pleasure from it, so if somebody gets more pleasure from doing something else that's equally harmless, it stands to reason he should do that instead. Whereas in Bentham's example, we do tend to think of artistic expression and appreciating art (especially art forms associated with elite culture like poetry) as intrinsically more valuable than childish pastimes like push-pin. It seems like one *ought* to learn to enjoy more sophisticated recreational activities like poetry even if push-pin is currently more enjoyable. I don't have the same intuition about eating ice cream; if someone doesn't like ice cream, I don't feel like they ought to prefer it to other activities they do enjoy

[kwloy]

Hey Jeff, I’m an ethics and religious studies major over at Guilford College. Really enjoying the series as a nice brush up on the basics as I move into my senior thesis studies!

[philipmrkeberg]

The idea that tickling the corpse of a cat removes it from existence is conceptually horrifying.

Love this entire channel though, it is such a service to the world to have all this information publicly available in a digestible format.

[thefarcountry]

To devise a comment on *_"Peter Singer ~ Ordinary People Are Evil"_* Mr. Kaplan has decided to force me to use the comment section that goes to one of his other videos. I will not hesitate to proceed: As to Singer's argument that postulates it is evil NOT to make charitable donations to starving children, wherever they exist in the world, using ALL of one's "extra" money that one would have in his possession at any conceivable moment in time ("extra" being any and all money one possesses that is NOT essential to bare-bones survival)...perhaps it would be better left to celestial beings who live in higher realities ~ higher planes of existence ~ to determine if this actually is an "act of evil."

*QUESTION:* is it then, let's just say, "morally wrong" *not* to donate ALL of one's "extra" money to charity?
*ANSWER:* Sounds like someone trying to lay a guilt trip on the entire population...let's not get carried away. In American, to be able to retire with a sufficiency of dignity, stability, and security ~ with adequate amounts of health care, recreation, mobility, organic foods, and all of the other essentials required to live out one's life in a state of physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and social wellness ~ to be able to retire with all of the bases covered adequately enough so one does not suffer ~ does not fall into depression, hopelessness, despair ~ and is able to maintain proper physical/ mental/ spiritual health and happiness to one's dying day is the goal, I would argue, that we ALL are struggling and striving to realize.

So what _would_ be an appropriate amount of *extra* money any American citizen should feel deserving of, justified to be in possession of, and to have saved up for one's retirement?... How much money should one be able to accumulate ~ to maintain throughout one's life ~ without any guilt ~ in order to avoid destruction, degeneration, death due to poverty and to insure one is able to maintain proper health and a sense of well being to the bitter end? WHAT THEN IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, AFTER ALL? I would say the approximate amount of extra money one should not feel guilty about holding in reserve for past / present / future essential expenses in 2023 would be $2, 000, 000... Therefore, anyone hoarding an amount of money that exceeds $2mil ~ who, then, is NOT donating ALL monies that exceed this allowable amount is, IMO, morally wrong.

"...From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded." _(Luke 12:48)_

[goliy]

It would be nice if you add links to the related paragraphs in the video description. Thank you a lot by the way

[AdvocateAsaf]

Sir ! I think JB is talking about nature of one person, I mean that he is thinking that what is valuable or cause of pleasure and what is non-valuable or cause of less pleasure or pain for one person not two different person. Example: A a person having more pleasure in listening Poetry than music for that person I mean for A poetry is more valuable than music. Your example is amazing but it's for two bodies ie X and Y.

In my mind counterexample will be as : something are not giving us pleasure but we need to do for other people for example a person is tired and he come to home his wife is ill it's not giving him pleasure but still it is valuable for him to serve her.
(I am student of Law not of Philosophy but want to study Philosophy after completion of Law degree... So in my example there will be must some mistakes but it's my try to answer it so I hope you will forgive my mistake Sir)

[markrussell]

My grandmother had red hair and gave out honey baked ham and iced tea. Southern grandmothers are the best.

[aaronmaiwald]

Thank you for the great video!
Minor: I think it's controversial to say that utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory, since not all utilitarians have a hedonistic axiology. Some, for instance, believe in objective-list theories. Wouldn't it be maybe more accurate to say that they are welfarist?

[oxmd]

I think we should define 'what is valuable' first. If the answer is 'something is valuable if it produces pleasure', then we come to the conclusion that 'more pleasure means more value'.
However, taking the conclusion to the extreme, if pleasure is the only thing that we want, shouldn't we do drugs from birth until death and remain high throughout our lives? This seems true to hedonism, but I don't want to believe it. Therefore, the hypothesis that 'pleasure is the only thing we want' may not be accepted by many people in the end.

[ELIOSANFELIU]

Jeremy::Your work is amazing¡¡¡Congrats¡¡

[owlnyc]

Higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Eating ice cream=Lower Pleasure. Listening to this video=Higher Pleasure. Listening to this video while exercising on treadmill is even higher. Playing TV toe vs playing chess? The flip side is the avoidance of pain. Sometimes you have to endure pain for long term benefits. For example going to a dentist to get a tooth pulled could involve at least some pain., but provide long term pleasure. Also physical therapy to rehabilitate an injury can involve a lot of pain. Hopefully the consequences will be positive. You might regain at least some of the use of what is being rehabilitated. There is also the paradox of the masochist who gets pleasure from pain . Even though it is a "lower order" pleasure. 🤔😏

[AJoe-zego]

Personally, I think you should have introduced the concept of the 'utility monster' here. It would have been a better counter-example.

[andiralosh]

I thought your example suitably strange, but then I remembered that taxidermy exists and there are people who are all about it

[attilarepasi]

I think you missed an important point in your counterexample, that hedonism defines the value of things only for the individual who experiences their pleasure or pain.
So if you experience more pleasure when doing something, that is more valuable for you, but the value of the same thing can be completely different for me as I can experience it differently.