I'm a Hedonist, but aren't we all?

[Vesi9000]

I think the occasional Christian usage of "Hedonist" as a sort of slur is counter-intuitive, moreover I think most Christians today are Hedonists. I actively seek out a way to maximize my pleasure in life, but this does not mean I take no care for the morrow (unless we're talking about the afterlife.) But that doesn't mean I have no place for the unpleasant in my life. I still endure pain when I know the outcome will be pleasurable. For instance, I frequently do community service (15-20hrs a week), which, oddly enough, makes me feel very good afterward. And the feeling I get from doing so may be a bit prideful, but I would just as soon call it the feeling of love. There's a type of high, or euphoria, you get after doing something for somebody else, which has no equivalent in the human experience.

And it's not just me that's a Hedonist. You are as well. The choice of your Heaven is enough to verify this fact. You feel pleasure when you do things in the name of God, do you not?

Is this even a necessary statement though? I saw someone in this forum call some one else a Hedonist (not necessarily in a derogatory manner), and I immediately disagreed with it. If you're living your entire life for the pleasure of Heaven, the pleasure of grace, or the pleasure of God's company, then you're living it in the most Hedonistic manner conceivable.

 

[GakuseiDon]

If you're living your entire life for the pleasure of Heaven, the pleasure of grace, or the pleasure of God's company, then you're living it in the most Hedonistic manner conceivable.

Expectation of pleasure is not hedonism. It is pursuing it at the sake of all else. From here: hedonism: Definition from Answers.com

• Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
• Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
• Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

The implication of hedonism is the desire to satiate one's own senses without concern for others. People devoted to God (or environment improvement, or welfare for the poor, or anything involving others) by definition cannot be hedonists, even if such pursuits provide pleasure.

 

[Vesi9000]

The implication of hedonism is the desire to satiate one's own senses without concern for others.

This conclusion doesn't follow from the definitions you listed. Is this information from a different source or are you just extrapolating on the definitions?

It seems to me, that the conclusion you've drawn is really only half accurate. Hedonism was the basis for Utilitarianism, which argues for the exact opposite of what you've just said. I'm not calling Utilitarianism a perfect ethical theory, but it's focus is on aggregate pleasure, which absolutely concerns others. It falls flat in some scenarios, but it's worthwhile to study.

Perhaps I'm incredibly mistaken about Hedonism, but I'm fairly confident personal pleasure is impacted by the pleasure of those around you, especially if we're bringing psychology into this.

 

[HarryCovert]

I get where the OP is coming from. We all seek pleasure at the sake of all else. Even when we are compassionate it is not entirely selfless. We are human, and can only do that which is pleasing to us, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. He actually understands sin quite well. Now if he only understood redemption.

 

[Vesi9000]

Now if he only understood redemption.

If only there was a place in the forum for Testimonies of Departure.

 

[GakuseiDon]

This conclusion doesn't follow from the definitions you listed. Is this information from a different source or are you just extrapolating on the definitions?

From the definition and also common usage. A hedonist is usually thought of as one who lives for pleasure, with the implication that this is something selfish. Perhaps there are other usages, but I don't see that someone who gets pleasure out of "loving one's neighbour as one's self" and "Do to others as you would be done by" is behaving like we would expect a hedonist to behave.

If the definition of "hedonist" can include someone who can adhere to the Golden Rule, then I'm happy to say I'm wrong.

 

[Vesi9000]

From the definition and also common usage. A hedonist is usually thought of as one who lives for pleasure, with the implication that this is something selfish. Perhaps there are other usages, but I don't see that someone who gets pleasure out of "loving one's neighbour as one's self" and "Do to others as you would be done by" is behaving like we would expect a hedonist to behave.

If the definition of "hedonist" can include someone who can adhere to the Golden Rule, then I'm happy to say I'm wrong.

Excellent, I'll quote John Stuart Mill, author of "Utilitarianism", directly for you.

"In the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."

He goes on to show why this is the case over the course of a page or so, but that's quite a bit of typing. If you pick up the book in a library, the citation is about half way through the second chapter. (I won't give you the page number as it will probably vary.)

And, this post is really a refutation of the colloquial use of the term. I think it may have been confused with "heathen" at some point and managed to stick. I can still see why a Christian would use the term as a sort of slur, but I would suspect it was out of ignorance.

But, regardless of anyone's position on the matter, I take to the terms "heathen" and "hedonist" with equal amounts of gratefulness and good humor. (I was even called a "dandy" yesterday, which I was quite pleased with.) In the same light, I can see a Christian having good reason to take offense to the former, but not the latter. Consider your hedonism a badge of honor.

 

[HarryCovert]

Excellent, I'll quote John Stuart Mill, author of "Utilitarianism", directly for you.

"In the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."

He goes on to show why this is the case over the course of a page or so, but that's quite a bit of typing. If you pick up the book in a library, the citation is about half way through the second chapter. (I won't give you the page number as it will probably vary.)

Jesus' version of the Golden Rule is a little stronger than Mill imagines. Jesus says love your enemy, which is somewhat more difficult than simply "do unto others," don't you think? It's not simply utilitarian, however idealized. In some cases it's suicidal.

 

[Vesi9000]

Jesus' version of the Golden Rule is a little stronger than Mill imagines. Jesus says love your enemy, which is somewhat more difficult than simply "do unto others," don't you think? It's not simply utilitarian, however idealized. In some cases it's suicidal.

I believe an easy way to come to terms with this is that not "loving your enemy" seems to be one of those sins that you're just going to commit. You can make it through your entire life without murdering anybody with relative ease, but you're going to spend most of your life disliking your sworn foes. But, if avoiding that sin will give you pleasure simply by glorifying your God, even in the face of pain or death, then I think you're still a hedonist.

But, maybe I misread that, are you referring to a secular humanist interpretation of those words from the book of Matthew (I think that's where it is)?

If that's the case, I can only say that I agree with the humanists. The morality in that particular text is questionable. But my opinions on the matter don't effect the hedonist perspective I'm forwarding.

 

[Joveia]

I would say (maybe in addition) that if we have free will, then we can choose what we find pleasurable. So one person can choose to find murder or torture pleasurable, and another person can choose to find volunteering and caring for people pleasurable. So goodness is not about avoiding pleasure, as such, but about choosing to find good things pleasurable, like kindness and generosity.

 

[MattRose]

I think the occasional Christian usage of "Hedonist" as a sort of slur is counter-intuitive, moreover I think most Christians today are Hedonists. I actively seek out a way to maximize my pleasure in life, but this does not mean I take no care for the morrow (unless we're talking about the afterlife.) But that doesn't mean I have no place for the unpleasant in my life. I still endure pain when I know the outcome will be pleasurable. For instance, I frequently do community service (15-20hrs a week), which, oddly enough, makes me feel very good afterward. And the feeling I get from doing so may be a bit prideful, but I would just as soon call it the feeling of love. There's a type of high, or euphoria, you get after doing something for somebody else, which has no equivalent in the human experience.

And it's not just me that's a Hedonist. You are as well. The choice of your Heaven is enough to verify this fact. You feel pleasure when you do things in the name of God, do you not?

Is this even a necessary statement though? I saw someone in this forum call some one else a Hedonist (not necessarily in a derogatory manner), and I immediately disagreed with it. If you're living your entire life for the pleasure of Heaven, the pleasure of grace, or the pleasure of God's company, then you're living it in the most Hedonistic manner conceivable.

One of the great orators of our time started a thread a while back that dealt with the mechanics of charity. http://www.christianforums.com/t7512194-2/
You might be interested in perusing this thread as it agreed with some of the things you mention here.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

And it's not just me that's a Hedonist. You are as well. The choice of your Heaven is enough to verify this fact. You feel pleasure when you do things in the name of God, do you not?

Is this even a necessary statement though? I saw someone in this forum call some one else a Hedonist (not necessarily in a derogatory manner), and I immediately disagreed with it. If you're living your entire life for the pleasure of Heaven, the pleasure of grace, or the pleasure of God's company, then you're living it in the most Hedonistic manner conceivable.

I think the way the term hedonism is usually used is referring to some selfish worldly (or even sexual) pleasures only. One web definition of hedonism is "someone motivated by desires for sensual pleasures".

I think you can live a hedonistic lifestyle and be morally upright but only if your pleasures come from morally upright things. And while you may get pleasure from doing community service I feel like you are a very, very, very rare anomaly. Most "pleasure" in the way we usually think of it comes from lust, greed, power and pride.

If given the option between having sex for pleasure or doing community service for pleasure on a questionnaire, how do you think the majority of the population would respond?

 

[elman]

This conclusion doesn't follow from the definitions you listed. Is this information from a different source or are you just extrapolating on the definitions?

It seems to me, that the conclusion you've drawn is really only half accurate. Hedonism was the basis for Utilitarianism, which argues for the exact opposite of what you've just said. I'm not calling Utilitarianism a perfect ethical theory, but it's focus is on aggregate pleasure, which absolutely concerns others. It falls flat in some scenarios, but it's worthwhile to study.

Perhaps I'm incredibly mistaken about Hedonism, but I'm fairly confident personal pleasure is impacted by the pleasure of those around you, especially if we're bringing psychology into this.

Feeling good about feeding a hungry person is not hedonism. Being unconcerned about the other person and only concerned with your own pleasure seeking would be.

 

[Vesi9000]

Feeling good about feeding a hungry person is not hedonism. Being unconcerned about the other person and only concerned with your own pleasure seeking would be.

Once again, concern for the self is not an experience divorced from the outside world. I could break out some psychology papers to demonstrate it, but I think that's unnecessary. I really don't think that's an issue in this question at all. . . unless you want to talk about the "subjective self", in which case we'll be getting into completely different territory.

I'll put my point a different way though. We could debate endlessly why people do or do not do good things for other people, but debate is not the purpose of this forum. And neither good nor bad deeds are under a Christian monopoly. I abide by an ethical code that gives me pleasure. You abide by one that does the same. Both of our codes accept personal pain and suffering as an acceptable means to pleasurable ends. I suspect the root impulse of both of our ethical codes is a form of hedonism.

We can underline that any way you'd like to. Take the bondage of the will for example. God makes people do good things (and bad ones too, but I'm not going there today). Okay. So, as an agnostic, God is still making me do good things right? Fine, that doesn't remove the pleasure from the action. My impulse to do those things is still governed (at least in my own mind) by expected pleasure. (I guess I could really ruffle feathers if I told you that even without any belief, whatsoever, in a god or gods, I don't believe in free-will. But free or not, the illusion of volition is there. And mine is one of hedonism.)

There may be an argument against this, and "loving your neighbour" may well be it. I'd love more talk on that, actually. That may be the single aspect of Christian faith that is, by its very nature, not hedonistic. Of course, you'd have to abide by it to not be a hedonist, which is terribly tricky.