Hedonism, the pleasures of life

Psychological versus ethical hedonism Hedonism is said to be the name given to the group of ethical systems that hold, with various modifications, that feelings of pleasure or happiness are the highest and final aim of conduct; that, consequently those actions which increase the sum of pleasure are thereby constituted right, and, conversely, what increases pain is wrong. Philosophers commonly distinguish between psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Psychological hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. Ethical hedonism is most associated with the ancient ree! philosopher Epicurus "#$%&%'( )*+ who taught that our life,s goal should be to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. -n fact, all of our actions should have that aim. Eudaimonism or "happiness" .he word eudaimonism comes from the ree! word for happiness "eudaimonia+, and refers to any conception of ethics that puts human happiness and the complete life of the individual at the center of ethical concern. .his is essentially a technical term and has no popular equivalent, though sometimes humanism comes close. /ristotle is the model eudaimonist, and really the founder of eudaimonism. 0toicism and Epicureanism are said to have turned their bac!s on eudaimonism because they didn,t advocate individual fulfillment but only the lac! of emotion or pain. Pleasure is not considered to be the same as happiness, so hedonism is not the same as eudaimonism, the perception being that happiness is the highest good. 1ant was an important opponent of eudaimonism. He re2ected the view that happiness is the highest good, and insisted that happiness can be an ingredient of the highest good only if it is deserved. Modern hedonism *ontemporary hedonists are sometimes classed into egoistic and altruistic. .he classification, however, is not quite satisfactory when applied to writers; because many hedonists combine the egoistic with the altruistic principle. .he distinction, however, may conveniently be accepted with regard to the principles that underlie the various forms of the doctrine. .he statement that happiness is the primary purpose of conduct at once raises the question3 whose happiness4 .o this egoism answers3 the happiness of the agent; while altruistic hedonism replies3 the happiness of all concerned; or, to use a phrase that is classic in the literature of this school, 5the greatest happiness for the greatest number5.

Other hedonistic perspectives Hedonists have appropriated the term happiness as an equivalent to the totality of pleasurable or agreeable feeling. .he same word is employed as the English rendering of the 6atin beatitudo and the ree! eudaimona, which stand for a concept quite different from the hedonistic one. .he /ristotelean idea is more correctly rendered in English by the term 5well&being5. -t means the state of perfection in which man is constituted when he exercises his highest faculty, in its highest function, on its highest good. )ecause they fail to give due attention to this distinction, some writers include eudaimonism among hedonistic systems. Epicurus and his philosophy of pleasure -n 5/ 6etter to 7enoeceus5, one of his few surviving fragments, Epicurus gave advice on how to decrease life,s pains, and explains the nature of pleasure. 8hen it comes to decreasing life,s pain, Epicurus explained how we can reduce the psychological anguish that results from fearing the gods and fearing death. *oncerning the nature of pleasure, Epicurus explained that at least some pleasures are rooted in nature and, as a rule, every pain is bad and should be avoided, and every pleasure is good and should be preferred. .here is a delicate relation between pain and pleasure. Every pain we have is bad, and we should minimize pain when possible; however, sometimes simply minimizing life,s pains is sufficient to attain happiness, and we need to go a step further and actively increase pleasure. He argued that we should not pursue every possible pleasure; such as, when they produce more pain. He also, argued that the fewer desires we have, the easier it will be to experience happiness. Christian philosophers rejected Epicurean hedonism 9uring the middle ages, *hristian philosophers largely re2ected Epicurean hedonism, which they believed was inconsistent with the *hristian emphasis on avoiding sin, doing od,s will, and developing the *hristian virtues of faith, hope and charity. :eniassance philosophers such as Erasmus ";$<<&;=#<+ revived hedonism and argued that its emphasis on pleasure was in fact compatible with od,s wish for humans to be happy. -n his famous wor! Utopia ";=;<+, )ritish philosopher .homas 7ore ";$'>&;=#=+ explained that 5the chief part of a person,s happiness consists of pleasure.5 6i!e Erasmus, .homas 7ore defended hedonism on religious grounds and argued that, not only did od design us to be happy, but that He uses our desire for happiness to motivate us to behave morally. 7ore importantly, .homas 7ore distinguished between the pleasures of the mind, and pleasures of the body. He also argued that we should pursue pleasures that are more naturally grounded, so that we do not become preoccupied with artificial luxuries. .he previous presentation consists of excerpts from a variety of sources; especially from ?Utilitarianism web site and The Catholic Encyclopedia web site

www.wordquests.info/hedonism.html