Is Hedonism a plausible theory of well-being?
The word hedonism comes from the ancient Greek word for pleasure. It’s a school of thought which argues that pleasure and happiness are the primary and most important intrinsic goods, and that these goods are the aim of human life. Hedonism involves striving to maximise pleasure (in the absence of pain) and to gain this pleasure through intrinsic or extrinsic goods. This pleasure is then manifested so that happiness remains a stationary expression within the hedonist’s life. It’s worth mentioning that hedonism is a sub-philosophy of utilitarianism, a belief where one acts in a way which maximises utility. In other words, they equate pleasure with utility and state that pleasure is the goal of life. In this paper I will be arguing my stance against hedonism as a plausible theory of well-being. It is my belief that the hedonist view is too narrow for the broad mind of the human, and that its belief in a singular aim for pleasure is off-course in the human pursuit of happiness.
I reached my stance on the matter by in-depth analysis of Robert Nozick’s thought experiment; The Experience Machine (Nozick, 1974), and by careful study of The Paradox of Hedonism (Shafer-Landau, 2010). These concepts support my thesis that hedonism is not a plausible theory of well-being, and also outline how hedonism may, and often does, have the opposite effect upon those who employ its principles. In order to support my statement, I will make reference Epicurus on Happiness. It is my aim that by employing the beliefs of these philosophies, I may support my argument on the implausibility of hedonism.
I will start by outlining that although pleasure is undoubtedly important to us as humans, I do not believe that it is at the centre of our well-being. Pleasure is made up of both physical pleasure and of attitudinal pleasure, or enjoyment (Shafer-Landau, 2010). The Experience Machine (Nozick, 1974) has the ability to provide us with an unlimited supply of both types of pleasure. The thought experiment is as follows: you have the ability to enter into a tank that is attended to by the best scientists. These scientists create a simulation of various pleasures of your choice, in a world that is identical to our own. The simulation is so real that you don’t know that the life you’re living isn’t real. The purpose of the tank is to fulfil human desires, and to make one feel pleasure, despite the fact that all the experiences one has in the tank are not real and only exist in the virtual world inside the tank.
The argument against the entrance into the experience machine goes as follows:
- If all that mattered to us was pleasure, then we would want to enter into the experience machine.
- However, we would not enter in to it.
- Hence, there are things which matter to us besides pleasure.
At this moment, I would like to point out the similarity between the hypothetical entrance into the tank, and the beliefs of a hedonist. A hedonist cares for pleasure, and so they would enter the tank in pursuit of this. I am in agreement with the above argument against the entrance into the tank, and I plan to show this by supporting premise two in more depth.
In my opinion, plugging into Nozick’s machine is inhumane. The entrance into the machine would come with a lack of value for the reality of an authentic emotional connection with another person, and a person willing to enter would have to want a synthetic one within the experience machine. The sacrifice of a real relationship for a perfect one, to replace mis-happenings that can cause discomfort, is an abandonment of a person’s autonomy. To remove yourself so thoroughly from the world is, as Nozick himself puts it, “a form of suicide.” (Nozick, 1974)
As well as this, I hold too high of an affinity for the real contributions that one could make into our world. I don’t believe in the simulation of having written a New York Times best-selling book for the mere pleasure of saying that you have done it, when one could write a book on their own with enough dedication and effort. In writing a book, an author has the ability to touch the lives of so many others who read their work. This example of a contribution that one could make to our world is one that should not be given up because of a dread of hard work that needs to be put into writing it. It disturbs me to see that the hedonist appears to be merely lazy, unwilling to carry out sometimes painful work, but only wanting to reap the rewards at the end. Nozick made his view of the entering into the machine clear when he outlined the importance of reality; “to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.” (Nozick, 2010) From this we can see that Robert Nozick himself had no interest in entering into the experience machine, as he was far more invested in doing real things and making real contributions to the world, and not just obtaining the mere experience of these actions. (This leads me to come into agreement with the critics of the hedonist John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), in saying that hedonism is a “doctrine of the swine.” (Shafer-Landau, 1974) Also, ethical hedonism (Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates) believed pleasure is the highest good, pleasure should far pass the amount of pain. There is debate within philosophy surrounding whether pleasure is an extension of happiness or if pleasure is merely the absence of pain. This debate, however, is largely ignored by Hedonism, as it is a debate which was formulated afterwards.
My final reason for not entering the machine would be because I think that pain is more important in our lives than it may seem. In my experience, pain (whether it be physical or emotional) is a tell-tale sign that something is either wrong, or that something is changing, and that the pain is there to alert us of what is happening. For example, if the cut on your leg didn’t hurt you, then how would you know that it is there? If you are unaware of its presence then you could not clean it and care for it so that it doesn’t cause you any further harm by getting infected. Or consider: if the actions of your cheating husband didn’t hurt you emotionally, then how would you realise that you in fact deserve better than his treatment of you? So I believe that pain is not bad, it is important. And despite our fear of it, it is there to tell the truth. For this reason I wouldn’t want to live without pain in the experience machine. I believe that hedonists are wrong for wanting to live without it too. Pain is an important stepping- stone for us on the way to our well-being, because if we are not aware of a problem with ourselves, then we are unable to attempt to fix it. To make myself clear: pain does not directly aid our well-being, but it is a factor that points us in the right direction of our well-being, and is therefore important despite the discomfort it brings.
My next point against hedonism being a plausible theory of well-being, is the Paradox of Hedonism. In my opinion, this is a large problem with hedonism. Hedonism says that if something aids your well-being and makes you more content, then you should try very hard to obtain it. However, in the case of happiness, if you try very hard to be happy or to find happiness, it is very unlikely that you will be happy. “Aiming directly for happiness is not the best way to get it,” (Shafer-Landau, 2010) and I believe this is true, largely because the unplanned is more pleasant due to the absence of expectation. If we single-mindedly pursue happiness, the expectations of what we will find will never suffice, and therefore we cannot be satisfied. (Coelho, 1988) This behaviour is self-defeating (Shafer-Landau, 2010) largely due to the presence of greed, leading you into a labyrinth of always wanting more than what you have. Alternatively, if in some strange twist of fates, you did manage to achieve only pleasure in your life-long pursuit of it, then how would you have anything to compare this pleasure-full life to in order to realise that it is in fact a good life? The ‘excellent’ will in time reduce to the ‘good’, and the ‘good’ to the ‘mediocre.’ Plato highlighted the fact that if your life consists solely of pleasure, then you would not be able to outline what pleasure is. You would not be able to distinguish a pleasing thought, even when you are in a moment of pleasure, because pleasure would be the reality that you live in with no other comparisons for context. (Plato, 4th Cent. BCE)
My final argument against the plausibility of hedonism is the complex nature of humans, leading to my understanding that we must care for more than the mere obtaining of pleasure. Humans are far too complex to be totally satisfied with just one aspect of our lives (pleasure.) We are unlike any other animal, so much so that we are often labelled the only “rational creature.” (Boyle, 2018) It is far from rational to pursue one single thing in the search for happiness or contentment. Therefore, I believe that we need more than just pleasure to be satisfied. Humans hold a very high affinity for the connections we have with others. This connection is so highly valued that we often sacrifice our temporary well-being for others long-term well-being. This seems to bring about some sort of fulfilment, despite the initial discomfort. Take the recent news story about a passing stranger saving a man from drowning in a freezing lake. According to Epicurean Principles on the virtue of pleasure; happiness is not a private pursuit. (Rosenbaum, 1990) It is apparent that humans care hugely for the connection that lies between relationships (whether it be a relationship with a perfect stranger, or not) and the reality that comes with them. Albeit a sacrifice of our own happiness for the well-being of someone else’s, humans are driven to aid ourselves by seeing the well-being of others blossom. I believe that we act out of empathy. For this reason, I am immediately in agreement with Joseph E. Canavan, as he claims that hedonists “take too simple a view of human nature” and that human nature is “a very complex thing indeed.” (Canavan, 1912)
To conclude, I believe that the hedonist theory of well-being is not a plausible one. As I see it, the comfort and satisfaction of human beings sits heavily on other things more-so than pleasure. For this reason, we don’t feel the need to enter into the experience machine (Nozick, 2010) and we can understand (and even relate to) the Paradox of Hedonism. As well as this, we are all aware of the complexities of our human nature being broad and grand, and for this reason I believe that our needs cannot be quenched with the theory of hedonism. Arsitotle’s well-being theory of ‘Eudaimonia’ is a way of life where a person flourishes and is constantly striving for their own self-improvement; to be more virtuous, more wise, more thoughtful, and to be more self-aware. Aristotle would not have believed in the entrance into Nozick’s experience machine. (Nozick, 2010) I believe that the principles at the core of hedonism are off-beat with the human essence, where one blossoms with self-improvement, and is content as a consequence. I simply believe that the hedonist’s pursuit of pleasure alone is destined for disappointment, and therefore lacks any plausibility.
Bibliography:
Boyle, Matthew. (2018) Forthcoming. Essentially rational animals. In Rethinking epistemology, ed. Guenther Abel and James Conant. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Grutyer. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8641838/Essentially_rational_animals.pdf?sequence=1
Coelhoe, Paulo. The Alchemist, Editoria Rocco Ltd. 1988.
Joseph E. Canavan (1912) Hedonism. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30092421
Mill, J. S. (1901). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Company.
Plato (4th Cent. BCE), Philebus. Available http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ ed. Gregory Crane.
Robert Nozick (1974) Anarchy, State, And Utopia. New York: Basic Books
Rosenbaum, S. E. (1990). Epicurus on pleasure and the complete life. The Monist, 73(1), 21-41.
Russ Shafer-Landau (2010) [2015] The Fundamentals of Ethics. (ed.3) Oxford University Press