hedonism the view that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is the sole intrinsic good in life. The hedonist may hold that, questions of morality aside, persons inevitably do seek pleasure (psychological hedonism); that, questions of psychology aside, morally we should seek pleasure (ethical hedonism); or that we inevitably do, and ought to, seek pleasure (ethical and psychological hedonism combined).
Psychological hedonism itself admits of a variety of possible forms. One may hold, e.g., that all motivation is based on the prospect of present or future pleasure. More plausibly, some philosophers have held that all choices of future actions are based on one’s presently taking greater pleasure in the thought of doing one act rather than another. Still a third type of hedonism – with roots in empirical psychology – is that the attainment of pleasure is the primary drive of a wide range of organisms (including human beings) and is responsible, through some form of conditioning, for all acquired motivations. Ethical hedonists may, but need not, appeal to some form of psychological hedonism to buttress their case. For, at worst, the truth of some form of psychological hedonism makes ethical hedonism empty or inescapable – but not false. As a value theory (a theory of what is ultimately good), ethical hedonism has typically led to one or the other of two conceptions of morally correct action. Both of these are expressions of moral consequentialism in that they judge actions strictly by their consequences. On standard formulations of utilitarianism, actions are judged by the amount of pleasure they produce for all (sentient beings); on some formulations of egoist views, actions are judged by their consequences for one’s own pleasure. Neither egoism nor utilitarianism, however, must be wedded to a hedonistic value theory. A hedonistic value theory admits of a variety of claims about the characteristic sources and types of pleasure. One contentious issue has been what activities yield the greatest quantity of pleasure – with prominent candidates including philosophical and other forms of intellectual discourse, the contemplation of beauty, and activities productive of ‘the pleasures of the senses.’ (Most philosophical hedonists, despite the popular associations of the word, have not espoused sensual pleasure.) Another issue, famously raised by J. S. Mill, is whether such different varieties of pleasure admit of differences of quality (as well as quantity). Even supposing them to be equal in quantity, can we say, e.g., that the pleasures of intellectual activity are superior in quality to those of watching sports on television? And if we do say such things, are we departing from strict hedonism by introducing a value distinction not really based on pleasure at all? Most philosophers have found hedonism – both psychological and ethical – exaggerated in its claims. One difficulty for both sorts of hedonism is the hedonistic paradox, which may be put as follows. Many of the deepest and best pleasures of life (of love, of child rearing, of work) seem to come most often to those who are engaging in an activity for reasons other than pleasure seeking. Hence, not only is it dubious that we always in fact seek (or value only) pleasure, but also dubious that the best way to achieve pleasure is to seek it. Another area of difficulty concerns happiness – and its relation to pleasure. In the tradition of Aristotle, happiness is broadly understood as something like well-being and has been viewed, not implausibly, as a kind of natural end of all human activities. But ‘happiness’ in this sense is broader than ‘pleasure’, insofar as the latter designates a particular kind of feeling, whereas ‘well-being’ does not. Attributions of happiness, moreover, appear to be normative in a way in which attributions of pleasure are not. It is thought that a truly happy person has achieved, is achieving, or stands to achieve, certain things respecting the ‘truly important’ concerns of human life. Of course, such achievements will characteristically produce pleasant feelings; but, just as characteristically, they will involve states of active enjoyment of activities – where, as Aristotle first pointed out, there are no distinctive feelings of pleasure apart from the doing of the activity itself. In short, the Aristotelian thesis that happiness is the natural end of all human activities, even if it is true, does not seem to lend much support to hedonism – psychological or ethical.
See also ARISTOTLE , ETHICS, EUDAI- MONISM , UTILITARIANISM , VALU. J.A.M.