Lecture 6

Hedonism/Egoism; Text: Utilitarianism (Text: pp. 161-162

177)
Hedonism
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 Greek philosopher Epicurus
(342-270 BCE.) who taught that our life's goal should be to minimize pain and
maximize pleasure. In fact, all of our actions should have that aim:
We recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin
every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling
as the standard by which we judge every good.
Epicurus gives advice on how to decrease life's pains, and explains the nature of
pleasure. As to decreasing life's pain, Epicurus explains how we can reduce the
psychological anguish that results from fearing the gods and fearing death.
Concerning the nature of pleasure, Epicurus explains that at least some pleasures are
rooted in natural and, as a rule, every pain is bad and should be avoided, and every
pleasure is good and should be preferred. However, there is 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 argues
that we should not pursue every possible pleasure, such as when they produce more
pain. Also, argues that the fewer desires we have, the easier it will be to experience
happiness.
During the middle ages, Christian philosophers largely denounced (condemn)
Epicurean hedonism, which they believed was inconsistent with the Christian
emphasis on avoiding sin, doing God's will, and developing the Christian virtues of
faith, hope and charity. Reniassance philosophers such as Erasmus (1466-1536)
revived hedonism and argued that its emphasis on pleasure was in fact compatible
with God's wish for humans to be happy. In his famous work Utopia (1516), British
philosopher Thomas More (1478-1535) explains that "the chief part of a person's
happiness consists of pleasure." Like Erasmus, More defends hedonism on religious
grounds and argues that, not only did God design us to be happy, but that uses our
desire for happiness to motivate us to behave morally. More importantly More
distinguishes between pleasures of the mind, and pleasures of the body. He also
argues that we should pursue pleasures that are more naturally grounded, so that we
do not become preoccupied with artificial luxuries. In the 18th century, the moral
theme of pleasure and happiness was more systematically explored by Francis
1

Hutcheson (1694-1747) and

precursors to utilitarianism.

David

Hume

(1711-1776),

whose theories

were

Introduction: Egoism
Hedonism originates from the Greek term hedone which means pleasure. According
to this theory, men do always desire his pleasantness. It is a quality because of which
an experience becomes good or valuable. Hedonism is of two types: ethical and
psychological. An ethical hedonism belongs to good action and right action. A good
action is good when it produces satisfaction to an individual based on its
consequences. On the other hand, a right action is always right on the basis of needs
for which an individual is satisfied.
Whenever we know that my action is either good or right, then we need to raise such
questions: i. What men ought to do? How we ought to desire?
In philosophy, egoism is the theory that ones self is, or should be, the motivation and
the goal of ones own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. The
descriptive (or positive) variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human
affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they
cannot be described otherwise. The normative variant proposes that people should be
so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behavior.
1. Descriptive /Psychological Egoism
The descriptive egoists theory is called psychological egoism. Psychological egoism
describes human nature as being wholly self-centered and self-motivated. Examples of
this explanation of human nature predate the formation of the theory, and, are found
in writings such as that of British Victorian historian, Macaulay, and, in that of British
Reformation political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. To the question, What proposition
is there respecting human nature which is absolutely and universally true?,
Macaulay, replies, We know of only one . . . that men always act from self-interest.
(Quoted in Garvin.) In Leviathan, Hobbes maintains that, No man giveth but with
intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the
object to every man is his own pleasure. In its strong form, psychological egoism
asserts that people always act in their own interests, and, cannot but act in their own
interests, even though they may disguise their motivation with references to helping
others or doing their duty.
Evaluation: Opponents claim that psychological egoism renders ethics useless.
However, this accusation assumes that ethical behavior is necessarily other-regarding,
which opponents would first have to establish. Opponents may also exploit
counterfactual evidence to criticize psychological egoism surely, they claim, there is
a host of evidence supporting altruistic or duty bound actions that cannot be said to
engage the self-interest of the agent. However, what qualifies to be counted as
apparent counterfactual evidence by opponents becomes an intricate and debatable
issue. This is because, in response to their opponents, psychological egoists may
attempt to shift the question away from outward appearances to ultimate motives of
acting benevolently towards others; for example, they may claim that seemingly
2

altruistic behavior (giving a stranger some money) necessarily does have a selfinterested component.
For example, if the individual were not to offer aid to a stranger, he or she may feel
guilty or may look bad in front of a peer group.
On this point, psychological egoisms validity turns on examining and analyzing moral
motivation. But since motivation is inherently private and inaccessible to others (an
agent could be lying to herself or to others about the original motive), the theory
shifts from a theoretical description of human natureone that can be put to
observational testingto an assumption about the inner workings of human nature:
psychological egoism moves beyond the possibility of empirical verification and the
possibility of empirical negation (since motives are private), and therefore it becomes
what is termed a closed theory.
A closed theory is a theory that rejects competing theories on its own terms and is
non-verifiable and non-falsifiable. If psychological egoism is reduced to an assumption
concerning human nature and its hidden motives, then it follows that it is just as valid
to hold a competing theory of human motivation such as psychological altruism.
Psychological altruism holds that all human action is necessarily other-centered, and
other-motivated. Ones becoming a hermit (an apparently selfish act) can be
reinterpreted through psychological altruism as an act of pure noble selflessness: a
hermit is not selfishly hiding herself away, rather, what she is doing is not inflicting
her potentially ungraceful actions or displeasing looks upon others. A parallel analysis
of psychological altruism thus results in opposing conclusions to psychological egoism.
However, psychological altruism is arguably just as closed as psychological egoism:
with it one assumes that an agents inherently private and consequently unverifiable
motives are altruistic. If both theories can be validly maintained, and if the choice
between them becomes the flip of a coin, then their soundness must be questioned.
A weak version of psychological egoism accepts the possibility of altruistic or
benevolent behavior, but maintains that, whenever a choice is made by an agent to
act, the action is by definition one that the agent wants to do at that point. The action
is self-serving, and is therefore sufficiently explained by the theory of psychological
egoism. Let one assume that person A wants to help the poor; therefore, A is acting
egoistically by actually wanting to help; again, if A ran into a burning building to save
a kitten, it must be the case that A wanted or desired to save the kitten. However,
defining all motivations as what an agent desires to do remains problematic: logically,
the theory becomes tautologous and therefore unable to provide a useful, descriptive
meaning of motivation because one is essentially making an arguably philosophically
uninteresting claim that an agent is motivated to do what she is motivated to do.
Besides which, if helping others is what A desires to do, then to what extent can A be
continued to be called an egoist? A acts because that is what A does, and
consideration of the ethical ought becomes immediately redundant. Consequently,
opponents argue that psychological egoism is philosophically inadequate because it
sidesteps the great nuances of motive. For example, one can argue that the
3

psychological egoists notion of motive sidesteps the clashes that her theory has with
the notion of duty, and, related social virtues such as honor, respect, and reputation,
which fill the tomes of history and literature.
David Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (Appendix IIOf Self
Love), offers six rebuttals of what he calls the selfish hypothesis, an arguably
archaic relative of psychological egoism. First, Hume argues that self-interest opposes
moral sentiments that may engage one in concern for others, and, may motivate
ones actions for others. These moral sentiments include love, friendship, compassion,
and gratitude. Second, psychological egoism attempts to reduce human motivation to
a single cause, which is a fruitless taskthe love of simplicityhas been the source
of much false reasoning in philosophy. Third, it is evident that animals act
benevolently towards one another, and, if it is admitted that animals can act
altruistically, then how can it be denied in humans? Fourth, the concepts we use to
describe benevolent behavior cannot be meaningless; sometimes an agent obviously
does not have a personal interest in the fortune of another, yet will wish her well. Any
attempt to create an imaginary vested interest, as the psychological egoist will
attempt, proves futile. Fifth, Hume asserts that we have prior motivations to selfinterest; we may have, for example, a predisposition towards vanity, fame, or
vengeance that transcends any benefit to the agent. Finally, Hume claims that even if
the selfish hypothesis were true, there are a sufficient number of dispositions to
generate a wide possibility of moral actions, allowing one person to be called vicious
and another humane; and he claims that the latter is to be preferred over the former.

Utilitarianism

Maximum happiness for the maximum numbers of

the people this slogan is made by JS Mill. It
belongs to some statements:
Hedonism
Hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind,
and the only thing that is good for an individual. Hedonists, therefore, strive to
maximise their total pleasure (the net of any pleasure less any pain or suffering). They
believe that pleasure is the only good in life, and pain is the only evil, and our life's
goal should be to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Psychological Hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in
such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical Hedonism, on the other hand,
is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or
happiness. It is the normative claim that we should always act so as to produce our
own pleasure.
4

Hedonism usually pre-supposes an individualist stance, and is associated with Egoism

(the claim that individuals should always seek their own good in all things).
Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to maximize happiness,
but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure). A similar
but more altruistic approach results in Utilitarianism, the position that the moral worth
of any action is determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing
happiness or pleasure as summed among all people.
The Paradox of Hedonism (also called the Pleasure Paradox), points out that pleasure
and happiness are strange phenomena that do not obey normal principles, in that
they cannot be acquired directly, only indirectly and we often fail to attain pleasures if
we deliberately seek them.
The term "hedonism" is derived from the Greek "hedone" meaning simply "pleasure".
In common language, Hedonism has come to mean devotion to pleasure as a way of
life, especially to the pleasures of the senses, and is synonymous with sensualism,
libertinism, debauchery and dissipation.
History of Hedonism
Perhaps the earliest example of Hedonism (and one of the most extreme) was the
philosophy of the Cyrenaics, an early Socratic school founded by Aristippus of Cyrene,
in the 4th Century B.C. (although, arguably, Democritus had propounded a very
similar philosophy even earlier). The Cyrenaics emphasized one side only of Socrates'
teaching that happiness is one of the ends of moral action (Eudaimonism), while
denying that virtue has any intrinsic value. They maintained that pleasure was the
supreme good, especially physical pleasure, which Aristippus considered more intense
and preferable to mental or intellectual pleasures, and especially immediate
gratification, which he argued should not be denied for the sake of long-term gain.
Epicureanism is considered by some to be a form of ancient Hedonism. Its founder,
Epicurus, agreed that pleasure is the greatest good, but he identified pleasure with
tranquillity rather than bodily gratification, and emphasized the reduction of desire
over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. Thus, for Epicurus, the highest pleasure
consists of a simple, moderate life spent with friends and in philosophical discussion.
Epicurus was also careful not to suggest that we should live a selfish life which
impedes others from obtaining their own pleasure.
During the Middle Ages, Christian philosophers largely denounced Hedonism, which
they believed was inconsistent with the Christian emphasis on avoiding sin, doing
God's will, and developing the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity. However,
Renaissance philosophers such as Erasmus and Sir Thomas More revived Hedonism to
some extent, defending it on the religious grounds that pleasure was in fact
compatible with God's wish for humans to be happy.
Libertinism is a philosophy related to Hedonism, which found adherents in the 17th,
18th and 19th Centuries, particularly in France and Britain, including the 2nd Earl of
Rochester (1647 - 1680), the Marquis de Sade (1740 -1814) and the occultist Aleister
5

Crowley (1875 - 1947). Libertinism ignores, or even deliberately spurns, religious

norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society, and
encourages gratification of any sort, especially sexual.
The 19th Century ethical theory of Utilitarianism, propounded by the British
philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, developed and refined Hedonism,
concluding that we should perform whichever action is best for everyone ("the
greatest good for the greatest number"). Bentham believed that the value of a
pleasure could be quantitatively understood, while Mill perferred a qualitative
approach dependent on the mix of higher quality pleasures and lower quality, simple
pleasures.
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), one of the biggest modern proponents of Egoism, has
rejected Hedonism as a comprehensive ethical system on the grounds that, although
pleasure can be the purpose of ethics, it cannot be the standard or guide to action, as
that would result in intellectual and philosophical abdication.
Contemporary Hedonists, as represented by an organization known as Hedonist
International, strive first and foremost for pleasure, as did their predecessors, but with
an additional emphasis on personal freedom and equality. Christian Hedonism is a
recent controversial Christian doctrine, current in some evangelical circles, which
holds that humans were created by God with the priority purpose of lavishly enjoying
God through knowing, worshiping and serving Him.