The fact that if it fails to cause a fast death, it causes a big deal of suffering to the individual is not out of irony. But is still not a problem for it.
I think that's using too narrow a definition of pleasurable. Isn't the (pleasurable) time spent with your parents worth the trade-off of caring for them?
Hedonism isn't necessarily restricted to physical pleasure. There are emotional and intellectual pleasures as well.
You can move around the definition of pleasure, but then you end up with situations where pain as a means to pleasure is indistinguishable from pain as equal to pleasure, which undermines the whole premise of hedonism (that only pleasure has value).
How could you possibly end up in a situation where pain is equal to pleasure? I think pain would only be considered positive when it leads to greater pleasure.
Epicurus' philosophy is based on the theory that all good and bad derive
from the sensations of what he defined as pleasure and pain: What is good
is what is pleasurable, and what is bad is what is painful. If pain is
chosen over pleasure in some cases it is only because it leads to a greater
pleasure. Epicurus explicitly warned against overindulgence because it often
leads to pain.
Although Epicurus has been commonly misunderstood to advocate the rampant
pursuit of pleasure, his teachings were more about striving for an absence
of pain and suffering, both physical and mental, and a state of satiation
and tranquility that was free of the fear of death and the retribution of
the gods.
Humans have a wide range of pleasures, of varying degrees of richness and sophistication. People sometimes object to hedonism on the grounds that it makes us no better than swine in the mud. But I think that reflects a poor opinion of humanity. Don't we get pleasure from symphonies, poetry, and great works of art?
Epicurus himself said he could be content with water, bread, weak wine and a "pot of cheese".
hedonism can look great when it's practiced by people who believe that the greatest pleasure comes from appreciating art. but it can look horrible for example in the case of suicide bombers, who i believe to be rational agents (i don't believe that they're mentally handicapped or on drugs or something). these are men who are completely convinced that they're doing the victims a great favor and that they will be rewarded with the highest pleasure imaginable. so in this case, the definition of pleasure has been moved so far that what is meant to be an expression of the highest pleasure imaginable is indistinguishable (to an outside observer) from pain.
maybe that's too extreme of an example, but it illustrates the point that the hedonist notion of good and bad is vastly ambiguous and can lead to undesirable situations, most notably in cases where people try to optimize for the afterlife, but also in varying degrees in other cases. so i think it ultimately it fails in practice as a moral philosophy.
I also think hedonism tends to stigmatize pain to an impractical degree. i think experiencing and accepting pain is an important part of life, not because it leads to greater pleasure, but because pain is a part of the human condition and there's value in observing it and recognizing its importance. in regards to art, there can't be catharsis without pain, so it doesn't make sense to me to say that pleasure is somehow better than pain in that sense. i think pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, whilst hedonists may shirk some responsibilities, perhaps their focus on pleasure also ends up improving their ability at finding pleasure in the situations they find themselves in. If you intend to find pleasure, you may find it easier to recognise the opportunities to create it when they arise.
So to go back to your example of looking after parents when they get old, perhaps a hedonist would be resistant if that involved acting as a servant, but may be good company for them by playing games, telling stories, etc... Not all acts of compassion require self-sacrifice.
Finding value in pleasure is different than saying that only pleasure has value. It seems to me that a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents, since only the games and the (pleasant) stories have value, and that they would do these things in more pleasant company instead.
Either way, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to deny that accepting and knowing pain is an important part of the human experience.
Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker."
For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure.
"a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents"
Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look to make situations more fun (for themselves, but this tends to involve taking others along for the ride). Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people, I'd say it's more than possible and I'm not even a hedonist (i.e. someone who looks for fun in a high proportion of their time, someone who is good at doing so).
"Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth."
I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructing a false ideal. Even if we use Google's poorly defined and colloquial version of hedonism, the more representative real world examples are cases of pain avoidance, overeating, risky behavior, gambling/shopping addiction, and so on.
> Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people
> "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
"Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth."
I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructing a false ideal. Even if we use Google's poorly defined and colloquial version of hedonism, the more representative real world examples are cases of pain avoidance, overeating, risky behavior, gambling/shopping addiction, and so on."
In my experience, hedonists don't tend to be philosophers, they aren't concerned with providing academic claims about what motivates us, they're much more focused on pleasure in the here and now, rather than making claims that they're living life in the right way. If you want to study hedonism as a philosopher, be my guest, but it doesn't match what I've seen from the behaviour of hedonists.
Furthermore, they aren't 'pain avoidant' they are 'pleasure seeking', there's a big difference. Pleasure seeking people will chase pleasure even if there's a risk of pain along the way, pain avoidant people will avoid trying anything that may cause them pain.
> "What?"
I don't think what I said was unclear. The implication you made was that hedonists would avoid old relatives. In my experience, hedonists are 'omnivores' when it comes to pleasure, it doesn't matter whether it's playing cards with old people or going out clubbing smashed off their face, they go for everything with gusto. That's my experience of hedonists, they want to have fun and they want to bring you along for the ride.
