Hubbry Logo
HedonismHedonismMain
Open search
Hedonism
Community hub
Hedonism
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hedonism
Hedonism
Hedonism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Diagram with the texts "pleasure", "motivation", "value", and "morality", together with arrows
Different forms of hedonism address the role of pleasure in motivation, value, and morality.[1]

Hedonism is a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure. Psychological hedonism is the theory that all human behavior is motivated by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. As a form of egoism, it suggests that people only help others if they expect a personal benefit. Axiological hedonism is the view that pleasure is the sole source of intrinsic value. It asserts that other things, like knowledge and money, only have value insofar as they produce pleasure and reduce pain. This view divides into quantitative hedonism, which only considers the intensity and duration of pleasures, and qualitative hedonism, which identifies quality as another relevant factor. The closely related position of prudential hedonism states that pleasure and pain are the only factors of well-being. Ethical hedonism applies axiological hedonism to morality, arguing that people have a moral duty to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Utilitarian versions assert that the goal is to increase overall happiness for everyone, whereas egoistic versions state that each person should only pursue their own pleasure. Outside the academic context, hedonism is sometimes used as a pejorative term for an egoistic lifestyle seeking short-term gratification.

Hedonists typically understand pleasure and pain broadly to include any positive or negative experience. While traditionally seen as bodily sensations, some contemporary philosophers view them as attitudes of attraction or aversion toward objects or contents. Hedonists often use the term "happiness" for the balance of pleasure over pain. The subjective nature of these phenomena makes it difficult to measure this balance and compare it between different people. The paradox of hedonism and the hedonic treadmill are proposed psychological barriers to the hedonist goal of long-term happiness.

As one of the oldest philosophical theories, hedonism was discussed by the Cyrenaics and Epicureans in ancient Greece, the Charvaka school in ancient India, and Yangism in ancient China. It attracted less attention in the medieval period but became a central topic in the modern era with the rise of utilitarianism. Various criticisms of hedonism emerged in the 20th century, prompting its proponents to develop new versions to address these challenges. The concept of hedonism remains relevant to many fields, ranging from psychology and economics to animal ethics.

Types

[edit]

The term hedonism refers to a family of views about the role of pleasure. These views are often categorized into psychological, axiological, and ethical hedonism depending on whether they study the relation between pleasure and motivation, value, or right action, respectively.[2] While these distinctions are common in contemporary philosophy, earlier philosophers did not always clearly differentiate between them and sometimes combined several views in their theories.[3] The word hedonism derives from the Ancient Greek word ἡδονή (hēdonē), meaning 'pleasure'.[4] Its earliest known use in the English language is from the 1850s.[5]

Psychological hedonism

[edit]
Oil painting of a bearded man with thin gray hair
Thomas Hobbes was a key advocate of psychological hedonism.[6]

Psychological or motivational hedonism is the view that all human actions aim at increasing pleasure and avoiding pain. It is an empirical view about what motivates people, both on the conscious and the unconscious levels.[7] Psychological hedonism is usually understood as a form of egoism, meaning that people strive to increase their own happiness. This implies that a person is only motivated to help others if it is in their own interest because they expect a personal benefit from it.[8] As a theory of human motivation, psychological hedonism does not claim that all behavior leads to pleasure. For example, if a person holds mistaken beliefs or lacks necessary skills, they may attempt to produce pleasure but fail to attain the intended outcome.[9]

The standard form of psychological hedonism asserts that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the only sources of all motivation. Some psychological hedonists propose less wide-reaching formulations, suggesting that considerations of pleasure and pain are not the only source of motivation, do not influence all actions, or are otherwise limited by certain conditions.[10] For example, reflective or rationalizing hedonism says that human motivation is only driven by pleasure and pain when people actively reflect on the overall consequences.[11] Another version is genetic hedonism, which accepts that people desire various things besides pleasure but asserts that each desire has its origin in a desire for pleasure.[12] Darwinian hedonism explains the pleasure-seeking tendency from an evolutionary perspective, arguing that hedonistic impulses evolved as adaptive strategies to promote survival and reproductive success.[13]

Proponents of psychological hedonism often highlight its intuitive appeal and explanatory power. They argue that many desires focus on pleasure directly, while others aim at pleasure indirectly by promoting its causes.[14] A similar argument from behavioral psychology proposes that altruistic conduct is learned through conditioning, which reinforces behavior that leads to positive rewards. This view asserts that all primary motivation comes from selfish drives on which all secondary motivation, including altruism, depends.[15] Critics of psychological hedonism often cite apparent counterexamples in which people act for reasons other than their personal pleasure. Proposed examples include acts of genuine altruism, such as a soldier sacrificing themselves on the battlefield to save their comrades or a parent wanting their children to be happy. Critics also mention non-altruistic cases, like a desire for posthumous fame. It is an open question to what extent these cases can be explained as types of pleasure-seeking behavior.[16] Another criticism from evolutionary biology argues that altruistic motivation is conducive to survival and reproduction. It suggests that altruistic motivation produces some necessary behavior, like parental care, more reliably since it does not depend on additional mechanisms, such as the individual's belief that parental care leads to personal pleasure.[17]

Axiological hedonism

[edit]
Diagram showing arrows pointing from texts "intensity" and "duration" to the text "value of pleasure"
According to quantitative hedonism, the value of an episode of pleasure only depends on its intensity and duration.[18]

Axiological or evaluative hedonism is the view that pleasure is the ultimate source of all value. It states that things other than pleasure only have value insofar as they produce pleasure or reduce pain. This is typically explained through the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value. An entity has intrinsic value if it is good in itself or if its worth does not depend on external factors; conversely, an entity has instrumental value if it leads to other good things. According to axiological hedonism, only pleasure is intrinsically valuable because it is good even when it produces no external benefit. Money, by contrast, is only instrumentally valuable because it can be used to acquire other good things but lacks value apart from these uses.[19] The overall value of something depends on both its intrinsic and instrumental value. In some cases, even unpleasant experiences, like a painful surgery, can be good overall if their positive consequences, like preventing future pain, outweigh the present discomfort.[20]

According to quantitative hedonism, the intrinsic value of pleasure depends solely on its intensity and duration. Qualitative hedonists hold that the quality of pleasure is an additional factor. They argue, for instance, that subtle pleasures of the mind, like the enjoyment of fine art and philosophy, can be more valuable than simple bodily pleasures, like enjoying food and drink, even if their intensity is lower.[18]

Black-and-white photo of smiling man wearing a white T-shirt
Robert Nozick criticized hedonism for not distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic pleasures.[21]

Prudential hedonism is closely related to axiological hedonism, focusing specifically on well-being or what is good for an individual. It states that pleasure and pain are the sole factors of well-being, meaning that how good a life is for a person only depends on its balance of pleasure over pain. Prudential hedonism allows for the possibility that things other than well-being have intrinsic value, such as beauty or freedom.[22]

Diverse arguments for and against axiological hedonism have been proposed. Proponents often focus on the intuition that pleasure is valuable and the observation that people naturally desire pleasure for its own sake.[20] A related approach acknowledges that people value things beyond pleasure, such as truth and beauty. It seeks to show that all other values have their source in the value of pleasure. Another argument assumes that the words good and pleasurable have the same meaning, implying that the pursuit of pleasure is inherently the pursuit of goodness.[23]

The idea that most pleasures are valuable in some form is relatively uncontroversial. Critics usually focus on the stronger claim that all pleasures are valuable or that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value.[24] Some assert that certain pleasures are worthless or even bad, like disgraceful and sadistic pleasures.[25][a] A different criticism comes from value pluralists, who contend that other things besides pleasure have value. To support the idea that beauty is an additional source of value, G. E. Moore used a thought experiment involving two worlds: one exceedingly beautiful and the other a heap of filth. He argued that the beautiful world is better even if there is no one to enjoy it.[27] Another influential thought experiment, proposed by Robert Nozick, involves an experience machine able to create artificial pleasures. Based on his contention that most people would not want to spend the rest of their lives in this type of pleasant illusion, he argued that hedonism cannot account for the values of authenticity and genuine experience.[21][b]

Ethical hedonism

[edit]
Photo of a bust of a bearded man
Epicurus developed a nuanced form of ethical hedonism, arguing that a tranquil state of mind cultivated through moderation leads to the greatest overall happiness.[29]

Ethical or normative hedonism is the thesis that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the highest moral principles of human behavior.[c] It implies that other moral considerations, like duty, justice, or virtue, are relevant only to the extent that they influence pleasure and pain.[31]

Theories of ethical hedonism can be divided into utilitarian and egoistic versions. Utilitarian hedonism, also called classical utilitarianism, asserts that everyone's happiness matters. It says that a person should maximize the sum total of happiness of everybody affected by their actions. This sum total includes the person's own happiness, but it is only one factor among many without any special preference compared to the happiness of others.[32] As a result, utilitarian hedonism sometimes requires people to forego their own enjoyment to benefit others. For example, philosopher Peter Singer argues that good earners should donate a significant portion of their income to charities since this money can produce more happiness for people in need.[33]

Egoistic hedonism says that each person should only pursue their own pleasure. According to this controversial view, a person only has a moral reason to care about the happiness of others if it impacts their own well-being. For example, if someone experiences unpleasant feelings, such as guilt, when harming others, then they have a reason to avoid causing harm. However, under this view, a person would be morally permitted—or even obliged—to harm others if doing so increases their own overall pleasure.[34]

Ethical hedonism is often combined with consequentialism, which asserts that an act is right if it has the best consequences. It is typically paired with axiological hedonism, which links the intrinsic value of consequences to pleasure and pain. As a result, many arguments for and against axiological hedonism also apply to ethical hedonism.[35] Additionally, proponents of utilitarian hedonism often emphasize its impartial nature, its simple and objective method for evaluating moral judgments, and its flexibility to apply to any situation. Critics frequently argue that utilitarian hedonism places too high demands on conduct and leads to injustice in some cases by sacrificing individual rights for the greater good. They also point to practical difficulties in assessing all pleasure-related consequences of actions.[36]

Others

[edit]
Oil painting of stars in the sky at night in swirling patterns
Aesthetic hedonism states that any entity, such as Vincent van Gogh's painting The Starry Night, is beautiful if it causes aesthetic pleasure.[37]

Aesthetic hedonism is a theory about the nature of aesthetic value or beauty. It states that a thing, like a landscape, a painting, or a song, has aesthetic value if people are pleased by it or get aesthetic pleasure from it. It is a subjective theory because it focuses on how people respond to aesthetically engaging things. This view contrasts with objective theories, which assert that aesthetic value only depends on objective or mind-independent features of things, like symmetry or harmonic composition. Some aesthetic hedonists believe that any type of pleasure is relevant to the aesthetic value of a thing. Others offer a more nuanced characterization, saying that aesthetic value is only based on how people with a well-developed taste respond to it.[37]

Outside the academic context of philosophy and psychology, the word hedonism is often used in a narrower sense as a pejorative term. Sometimes called folk hedonism, it describes a lifestyle dedicated to the egoistic pursuit of short-term gratification. For example, a person who indulges in sex and drugs without concern for the long-term consequences of their behavior is acting hedonistically in this sense. The negative connotation of the term is associated with a lack of interest or foresight regarding the potential harm or ethical implications of such actions. Negative consequences can impact both the individual and the people around them, affecting areas such as health, financial stability, relationships, and societal responsibilities. Most philosophical hedonists reject the idea that a lifestyle characterized by folk hedonism leads to long-term happiness.[38]

Central concepts

[edit]

Pleasure and pain

[edit]
Main articles: Pleasure and Pain

Pleasure and pain are fundamental experiences about what is attractive and what is repulsive, shaping how people feel, think, and act.[39] They play a central role in all forms of hedonism.[40] Both pleasure and pain come in degrees corresponding to their intensity. They are typically understood as a continuum ranging from positive degrees through a neutral point to negative degrees.[41] However, some hedonists reject the idea that pleasure and pain form a symmetric pair and suggest instead that avoiding pain is more important than producing pleasure.[42]

The nature of pleasure and pain is disputed and affects the plausibility of various versions of hedonism. In everyday language, these concepts are often understood in a narrow sense associated with specific phenomena, like the pleasure of food and sex or the pain of an injury.[43] However, hedonists usually adopt a broader view in which pleasure and pain cover any positive or negative experience. In this broad sense, anything that feels good is a pleasure, including the joy of watching a sunset, whereas anything that feels bad is a pain, including the sorrow of losing a loved one.[44] A traditionally influential position says that pleasure and pain are specific bodily sensations, similar to those of hot and cold. A more common view in contemporary philosophy holds that pleasure and pain are attitudes of attraction or aversion, respectively, toward objects or contents.[d] This view implies that they do not have a specific location in the body and do not arise in isolation since they are always directed at an object that people enjoy or suffer.[46]

Measurement

[edit]

Both philosophers and psychologists are interested in methods of measuring pleasure and pain to understand their causes and role in decision-making. A common approach is to use self-report questionnaires in which people are asked to quantify how pleasant or unpleasant an experience is. For example, some questionnaires use a nine-point scale from -4 for the most unpleasant experiences, to +4 for the most pleasant ones. Some methods rely on memory and ask individuals to retrospectively assess their experiences. A different approach is for individuals to evaluate their experiences while they are happening to avoid biases and inaccuracies introduced by memory.[47]

In either form, the measurement of pleasure and pain poses various challenges. As a highly subjective phenomenon, it is difficult to establish a standardized metric. Moreover, asking people to rate their experiences using an artificially constructed scale may not accurately reflect their subjective experiences. A closely related problem concerns comparisons between individuals, since distinct people may use the scales differently and thus arrive at varying values even if they had similar experiences.[47] Neuroscientists avoid some of these challenges by using neuroimaging techniques such as PET scans and fMRI. However, this approach comes with new difficulties of its own since the neurological basis of happiness is not yet fully understood.[48]

Based on the idea that individual experiences of pleasure and pain can be quantified, Jeremy Bentham proposed the hedonistic calculus as a method to combine various episodes to arrive at their total contribution to happiness. He suggested that one can find the best course of action by quantitatively comparing the experiences produced by each action. Bentham considered several factors for each pleasurable experience: its intensity and duration, the likelihood that it occurs, its temporal distance, the likelihood that it causes further experiences of pleasure and pain, and the number of people affected. Some simplified versions of the hedonic calculus focus primarily on what is intrinsically valuable to a person and only consider two factors: intensity and duration.[49]

Happiness, well-being, and eudaimonia

[edit]
Main articles: Happiness, Well-being, and Eudaimonia

Some theorists formulate hedonism in terms of happiness rather than pleasure and pain. According to a common interpretation, happiness is the balance of pleasure over pain. This means that a person is happy if they have more pleasure than pain and unhappy if the balance is overall negative.[50] There are also other ways to understand happiness that do not fully align with the traditional account of hedonism. One view defines happiness as life satisfaction. This means that a person is happy if they have a favorable attitude toward their life; for example, by being satisfied with their life as a whole or by judging it to be good overall. This attitude may be influenced by the balance of pleasure over pain but can also be shaped by other factors.[51]

Well-being is closely related to happiness as a measure of what is ultimately good for a person.[52] According to a common view, pleasure is one component of well-being. It is controversial whether it is the only factor and what other factors there are; such as health, knowledge, and friendship. Another approach focuses on desires, saying that well-being consists in the satisfaction of desires.[53] The view that the balance of pleasure over pain is the only source of well-being is called prudential hedonism.[54]

Eudaimonia is a form of well-being rooted in ancient Greek thought, serving as a foundation of many forms of moral philosophy during this period. Aristotle understood eudaimonia as a type of flourishing in which a person is happy by leading a fulfilling life and manifesting their inborn capacities. Ethical theories based on eudaimonia often share parallels with hedonism, like an interest in long-term happiness, but are distinguished from it by their emphasis of virtues, advocating an active lifestyle focused on self-realization.[55]

Paradox of hedonism and hedonic treadmill

[edit]
Main articles: Paradox of hedonism and Hedonic treadmill
Diagram showing the effects of different events on life satisfaction over time
Study of the long-term effects of positive and negative events on life satisfaction, indicating a weak form of the hedonic treadmill as life satisfaction slowly normalizes in the years after the event[56]

The paradox of hedonism is the thesis that the direct pursuit of pleasure is counterproductive. It says that conscious attempts to become happy usually backfire, acting as obstacles to one's personal happiness. According to one interpretation, the best way to produce pleasure is to follow other endeavors, with pleasure being a by-product rather than the goal itself. For example, this view suggests that a tennis player who tries to win a game may enjoy the activity more than a tennis player who tries to maximize their enjoyment. It is controversial to what extent the paradox of hedonism is true since, at least in some cases, the pursuit of pleasure is successful.[57]

A related phenomenon, the hedonic treadmill is the theory that people return to a stable level of happiness after significant positive or negative changes to their life circumstances. This suggests that good or bad events affect a person's happiness temporarily but not in the long term—their overall level of happiness tends to revert to a baseline as they get used to the changed situation. For instance, studies on lottery winners indicate that their happiness initially increases as the newly acquired wealth augments their living standards but returns to its original level after about one year. If true, this effect would undermine efforts to increase happiness in the long term, including personal efforts to lead a healthy lifestyle and social efforts to create a free, just, and prosperous society. While there is some empirical support for this effect, it is controversial how strong this tendency is and whether it applies to all fields or only to certain aspects of life.[58]

Non-hedonism and asceticism

[edit]

Non-hedonist theories reject certain aspects of hedonism. One form of non-hedonism says that pleasure is one thing in life that matters but not the only thing. Another form argues that some pleasures are good while others are bad. The strongest rejection of hedonism, sometimes termed anti-hedonism, claims that all pleasures are bad. Motivations to adopt this view include the idea that pleasure is an irrational emotion and that the pursuit of pleasure is an obstacle that prevents people from leading a good life.[59]

Asceticism is a lifestyle dedicated to a program of self-discipline that renounces worldly pleasures. It can take various forms, including abstinence from sex and drugs, fasting, withdrawal from society, and practices like prayer and meditation. This lifestyle is often motivated by religious aspirations to become close to the divine, reach a heightened spiritual state, or purify oneself.[60] Most forms of asceticism are opposed to hedonism and its pursuit of pleasure. However, there are forms of ascetic hedonism that combine the two views; for example, by asserting that the right form of ascetic practice leads to higher overall happiness by replacing simple sensory pleasures with deeper and more meaningful spiritual pleasures.[61]

History

[edit]

Ancient

[edit]
Engraving showing the head of a bearded man from the side
Aristippus of Cyrene is often seen as the first proponent of philosophical hedonism.[62]

Hedonism is one of the oldest philosophical theories and some interpreters trace it back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around 2100–2000 BCE.[63] It was a central topic in ancient Greek thought, where Aristippus of Cyrene (435-356 BCE) is usually identified as its earliest philosophical proponent. He formulated an egoistic hedonism, arguing that personal pleasure is the highest good. Aristippus and the school of Cyrenaics he inspired focused on the gratification of immediate sensory pleasures with little concern for long-term consequences.[62] Plato (c. 428–347 BCE)[64] critiqued this view and proposed a balanced pursuit of pleasure that aligns with virtue and rationality.[65] Following a similar approach, Aristotle (384–322 BCE)[66] associated pleasure with eudaimonia or the realization of natural human capacities, like reason.[67]

Epicurus (341–271 BCE) developed a nuanced form of hedonism that contrasts with the indulgence in immediate gratification proposed by the Cyrenaics. The philosophical movement he founded argues that excessive desires result in anxiety and suffering, suggesting instead that people practice moderation, cultivate a tranquil state of mind, and avoid pain.[29] Following Antisthenes (c. 446—366 BCE), the Cynics warned against the pursuit of pleasure, viewing it as an obstacle to freedom.[68] The Stoics also dismissed a hedonistic lifestyle, focusing on virtue and integrity instead of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.[69] Lucretius (c. 99–55 BCE) further expanded on Epicureanism, highlighting the importance of overcoming obstacles to personal happiness, such as the fear of death.[70]

In ancient India, starting between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, the Charvaka school developed an egoistic hedonism. Motivated by the belief in the non-existence of God or an afterlife, this school advocates enjoying life in the present to the fullest. Many other Indian traditions rejected this view and recommended a more ascetic lifestyle, a tendency common among Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain schools of thought.[71] In ancient China, Yang Zhu (c. 440–360 BCE)[e] argued that it is human nature to follow self-interest and satisfy personal desires. His egoistic hedonism inspired the subsequent school of Yangism.[73]

Medieval

[edit]

Hedonist philosophy received less attention in medieval thought.[74] The early Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE),[75] was critical of the hedonism found in ancient Greek philosophy, warning of the dangers of earthly pleasures as obstacles to a spiritual life dedicated to God.[76] Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE) developed a nuanced perspective on hedonism, characterized by some interpreters as spiritual hedonism. He held that humans are naturally inclined to seek happiness, arguing that the only way to truly satisfy this inclination is through a beatific vision of God.[77] In Islamic philosophy, the problem of pleasure played a central role in the philosophy of al-Razi (c. 864—925 or 932 CE). Similar to Epicureanism, he recommended a life of moderation avoiding excess and asceticism.[78][f] Both al-Farabi (c. 878–950 CE)[79] and Avicenna (980–1037 CE)[80] asserted that a form of intellectual happiness, reachable only in the afterlife, is the highest human good.[81]

Modern and contemporary

[edit]

At the transition to the early modern period, Lorenzo Valla (c. 1406–1457) synthesized Epicurean hedonism with Christian ethics, suggesting that earthly pleasures associated with the senses are stepping stones to heavenly pleasures associated with Christian virtues.[82] Hedonism gained prominence during the Age of Enlightenment.[83] According to Thomas Hobbes's (1588–1679)[84] psychological hedonism, self-interest in what is pleasant is the root of all human motivation.[6] John Locke (1632–1704) stated that pleasure and pain are the only sources of good and evil.[85] Joseph Butler (1692–1752) formulated an objection to psychological hedonism, arguing that most desires, like wanting food or ambition, are not directed at pleasure itself but at external objects.[86] According to David Hume (1711–1776),[87] pleasure and pain are both the measure of ethical value and the main factors of emotional life.[88] The libertine novels of Marquis de Sade (1740–1814) depicted an extreme form of hedonism, emphasizing full indulgence in pleasurable activities without moral or sexual restraint.[89]

Oil painting of a man with long gray hair in a formal attire
Jeremy Bentham formulated a universal form of hedonism that takes everyone's pleasure into account.[90]

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)[91] developed an influential form of hedonism known as classical utilitarianism. One of his key innovations was the rejection of egoistic hedonism, instead advocating that individuals should promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He introduced the idea of the hedonic calculus to assess the value of an action based on the pleasurable and painful experiences it causes, relying on factors such as intensity and duration.[90] His student John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)[92] feared that Bentham's quantitative focus on the intensity and duration would lead to an overemphasis on simple sensory pleasures. In response, he included the quality of pleasures as an additional factor, arguing that higher pleasures of the mind are more valuable than lower pleasures of the body.[93] Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900) further refined utilitarianism and clarified many of its core distinctions, such as the contrast between ethical and psychological hedonism and between egoistic and utilitarian hedonism.[94]

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)[95] rejected ethical hedonism and emphasized the importance of excellence and self-overcoming instead, stating that suffering is necessary to achieve greatness rather than something to be avoided.[96] An influential view about the nature of pleasure was developed by Franz Brentano (1838–1917),[97] who dismissed the idea that pleasure is a sensation located in a specific area of the body, proposing instead that pleasure is a positive attitude that people can have toward various objects[g]—a position also later defended by Roderick Chisholm (1916–1999).[99] Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) developed a form of psychological hedonism in his early psychoanalytic theory. He stated that the pleasure principle describes how individuals seek immediate pleasure while avoiding pain whereas the reality principle represents the ability to postpone immediate gratification to avoid unpleasant long-term consequences.[100]

The 20th century saw various criticisms of hedonism.[101] G. E. Moore (1873–1958)[102] rejected the hedonistic idea that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value. According to his axiological pluralism, there are other sources, such as beauty and knowledge,[103] a criticism also shared by W. D. Ross (1877–1971).[104] Both C. D. Broad (1887–1971) and Richard Brandt (1910–1997) held that malicious pleasures, like enjoying the suffering of others, do not have inherent value.[105] Robert Nozick (1938–2002) used his thought experiment involving an experience machine capable of simulated pleasure to argue against traditional hedonism, which ignores whether there is an authentic connection between pleasure and reality.[21]

In response to these and similar criticisms, Fred Feldman (1941–present) has developed a modified form of hedonism. Drawing on Brentano's attitudinal theory of pleasure, he has defended the idea that even though pleasure is the only source of intrinsic goodness, its value must be adjusted based on whether it is appropriate or deserved.[106] Peter Singer (1946–present) has expanded classical hedonism to include concerns about animal welfare.[h] He has advocated effective altruism, relying on empirical evidence and reason to prioritize actions that have the most significant positive impact.[108] Inspired by the philosophy of Albert Camus (1913–1960), Michel Onfray (1959–present) has aimed to rehabilitate Epicurean hedonism in a modern form.[109] David Pearce (1959–present) has developed a transhumanist version of hedonism, arguing for the use of modern technology, ranging from genetic engineering to nanotechnology, to reduce suffering and possibly eliminate it in the future.[110] The emergence of positive psychology at the turn of the 21st century has led to an increased interest in the empirical exploration of various topics of hedonism.[111]

In various fields

[edit]

Positive psychology studies how to cultivate happiness and promote optimal human functioning. Unlike traditional psychology, which often focuses on psychopathology, positive psychology emphasizes that optimal functioning is more than the absence of mental illness. At the individual level, it investigates experiences of pleasure and pain and the role of character traits, and at the societal level, it examines how social institutions impact human well-being.[112]

Hedonic psychology or hedonics[i] is one of the main pillars of positive psychology, studying pleasant and unpleasant experiences. It investigates and compares different states of consciousness associated with pleasure and pain, ranging from joy and satisfaction to boredom and sorrow. Hedonic psychology also examines the biological function of these states. This includes their role as signals for what to approach or avoid, and as mechanisms of reward and punishment to reinforce or discourage behavioral patterns, respectively. Additionally, hedonic psychology explores the circumstances that evoke these experiences, on both the biological and social levels.[114] It addresses psychological obstacles to pleasure, such as anhedonia, a reduced ability to experience pleasure, and hedonophobia, a fear or aversion to pleasure.[115] Positive psychology in general and hedonic psychology in particular are relevant to hedonism by providing a scientific understanding of the experiences of pleasure and pain and the processes impacting them.[116]

Photo of a man with gray hair speaking through a headset
Peter Singer has applied utilitarianism to problems of animal ethics.[117]

In the field of economics, welfare economics examines how economic activities affect social well-being. It is often understood as a form of normative economics, which evaluates economic processes and policies rather than just describing them. Hedonist approaches to welfare economics state that pleasure is the main criterion of this evaluation, meaning that economic activities should aim to promote societal happiness.[118] The economics of happiness is a closely related field studying the relation between economic phenomena, such as wealth, and individual happiness.[119] Economists also employ hedonic regression, a method used to estimate the value of commodities based on their utility or effect on the owner's pleasure.[120]

Animal ethics is the branch of ethics studying human behavior towards other animals. Hedonism is an influential position in this field as a theory of animal welfare. It emphasizes that humans have the responsibility to consider the impact of their actions on how animals feel to minimize harm done to them.[121] Some quantitative hedonists suggest that there is no qualitative difference between the pleasure and pain experienced by humans and other animals. As a result of this view, moral considerations about promoting the happiness of others apply to all sentient animals. This position is modified by some qualitative hedonists, who argue that human experiences carry more weight because they include higher forms of pleasure and pain.[122]

While many religious traditions are critical of hedonism, some have embraced it or certain aspects of it, such as Christian hedonism.[123] Elements of hedonism are also found in various forms of popular culture, such as consumerism, the entertainment industry, and the enduring influences of the sexual revolution.[124]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hedonism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hedonism is the philosophical that all is intrinsically good and that nothing but is intrinsically good. This view posits —whether sensory, intellectual, or otherwise—as the sole measure of value and the proper object of human pursuit, with as its . Ethical hedonism extends this to , asserting that actions are right insofar as they promote and minimize . The doctrine traces its origins to , where of Cyrene established the Cyrenaic school, advocating the maximization of immediate, bodily pleasures as the highest good. later refined hedonism into a more ascetic form, prioritizing ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (absence of pain) through prudent moderation, friendship, and over fleeting indulgences. In the modern period, revived and systematized hedonism within , proposing a calculus to quantify pleasures by their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, , purity, and extent to guide ethical decisions. Hedonism has faced persistent criticisms for conflating the causes of value with value itself, overlooking non-pleasurable goods like or , and failing to account for empirical observations such as hedonic adaptation, where repeated pleasures diminish in impact over time. Thought experiments, including those questioning whether simulated maximal equates to a worthwhile life, highlight preferences for authentic experiences and agency beyond mere sensation. Despite these challenges, hedonistic principles influence contemporary discussions in , , and , where metrics inform assessments of well-being.

Definitions and Variants

Psychological Hedonism

Psychological hedonism, also known as motivational hedonism, asserts that all human motivations derive ultimately from desires to experience and avoid , encompassing both conscious and unconscious drives. This descriptive psychological theory posits that even seemingly non-hedonic actions, such as pursuing or fulfilling duties, reduce to hedonic incentives, where the agent anticipates pleasure from the outcome or pain from its absence. The theory traces to ancient proponents like , who viewed pleasure as the natural guide to action, and gained prominence in through , who integrated it into utilitarian frameworks by claiming is governed by "two sovereign masters, pleasure, and pain." Figures like , , , and also endorsed variants, interpreting drives like or instinctual behaviors as pleasure-seeking mechanisms. However, Bentham's formulation faced early critique from in 1726, who argued that desires for esteem or benevolence appear irreducible to self-pleasure without additional assumptions. Empirical support for psychological hedonism draws from , particularly models where actions are shaped by associations with rewarding hedonic states via pathways. Anthony Dickinson's hedonic interface distinguishes reinforcement hedonism (R-hedonism), in which desires of any content—including altruistic ones—are strengthened through contingent reinforcement, from inferential hedonism (I-hedonism), which requires desires to explicitly target personal hedonic states; R-hedonism aligns better with neuroscientific evidence of 's role in habit formation and . Studies on hedonic hotspots in the , such as the , further indicate that pleasure signals underpin motivational hierarchies, though these do not conclusively prove all motivations are exclusively hedonic. Critics contend that psychological hedonism, especially in its strong form claiming exclusive hedonic motivation, is unfalsifiable and contradicted by counterexamples like self-sacrificial acts in soldiers or parental instincts, which introspective evidence suggests stem from intrinsic desires beyond anticipated pleasure. and reinforced this via cases of hunger or the myth, where agents act against evident pleasure maximization, implying diverse basic motives. Proponents counter by reclassifying such acts as yielding indirect pleasure (e.g., via social approval) or appealing to unconscious processes, but these responses lack robust empirical validation and fail to explain motivational pluralism observed in psychological experiments. The —wherein direct pursuit of pleasure often yields less than incidental attainment—further undermines its predictive power as a comprehensive theory.

Axiological Hedonism

Axiological hedonism asserts that constitutes the sole intrinsic good, with all other purported deriving value instrumentally through their capacity to , while pain represents the sole intrinsic bad. This position focuses exclusively on the evaluative status of states of affairs, independent of prescriptive implications for action or . In contrast to ethical hedonism, which derives moral obligations from the pursuit of , axiological hedonism remains neutral on duties, claiming only that 's hedonic tone endows it with fundamental worth. Jeremy Bentham exemplified this view in his 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, declaring that "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure," positioning them as the ultimate arbiters of human valuation. Bentham argued that the principle of utility—maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain—serves as the measure of right and wrong because these sensations alone determine approbation and disapprobation in human experience. Similarly, ancient proponents like Epicurus regarded the absence of pain (ataraxia) and bodily pleasure as the highest goods, though he emphasized static pleasures over kinetic ones, maintaining that only hedonic states possess non-derivative value. Critics, including in his 1903 , contended that pleasure cannot be the only intrinsic good, as organic unities like aesthetic appreciation or knowledge yield value exceeding their pleasurable components. Robert Nozick's 1974 further challenges the view by illustrating that individuals often reject maximally pleasurable simulated experiences in favor of authentic realities involving agency and truth, suggesting additional intrinsic values beyond sensation. Empirical psychology, such as studies on the , reveals that pleasure's value may diminish over time due to adaptation, questioning its unqualified status as the paramount good.

Ethical Hedonism

Ethical hedonism posits that constitutes the sole intrinsic good and the sole intrinsic evil, prescribing actions that maximize net as morally obligatory. This normative doctrine contrasts with psychological hedonism's descriptive claim that humans are motivated solely by and avoidance. Proponents argue from first principles that sensory experiences of and provide the fundamental measure of value, as all desires ultimately reduce to seeking the former and avoiding the latter. In , the , founded by of Cyrene around 400 BCE, advocated immediate sensory pleasures as the highest good, emphasizing present enjoyment over future considerations. (341–270 BCE), however, refined ethical hedonism by prioritizing static pleasures—such as the absence of physical pain (aponia) and mental disturbance (ataraxia)—over kinetic ones, arguing that excessive pursuits lead to future pains that outweigh gains. He maintained that prudence, friendship, and maximize long-term pleasure, rejecting unfounded fears like death as non-experiences. Jeremy Bentham revived ethical hedonism in the 18th century through utilitarianism, asserting in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) that "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure," making their calculus the standard for right and wrong. Bentham proposed a quantitative hedonic calculus assessing pleasures by intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent, applicable to all sentient beings for impartial maximization. This universalist variant extends beyond egoistic self-interest to aggregate pleasure across society. Critics challenge ethical hedonism's reductionism, as evidenced by Robert Nozick's 1974 "" , where individuals reject a device simulating maximum pleasure in favor of authentic reality involving genuine achievements, relationships, and agency, suggesting value beyond subjective states. Empirical studies on , such as those tracking , reveal adaptation to circumstances () and prioritization of non-hedonic factors like purpose and autonomy, undermining pleasure's exclusivity as the moral criterion. The further complicates direct pursuit, as intentional maximization often yields less pleasure than incidental activities, per observations in psychological research. These objections highlight ethical hedonism's vulnerability to counterexamples where moral intuitions favor or over net pleasure, as in dilemmas sacrificing few for many's delight.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Distinctions

Quantitative hedonism evaluates pleasures based on measurable dimensions of quantity, such as intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent, treating all pleasures as commensurable units to be maximized through a hedonic calculus. Jeremy Bentham, in his 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, developed this approach as the foundation of utilitarianism, asserting that "quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry" to emphasize indifference to the source or type of pleasure. This view aligns with psychological hedonism by reducing ethical value to net aggregate pleasure, enabling impartial calculation for policy and individual action. Qualitative hedonism, conversely, posits that pleasures vary in intrinsic quality, with some forms—typically those engaging higher intellectual or moral faculties—deemed superior regardless of quantity. , in his 1863 Utilitarianism, argued that competent judges who have experienced both bodily and mental pleasures invariably prefer the latter, stating, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a satisfied; better to be dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." 's prioritizes "higher" pleasures like those from , , and over sensory indulgences, aiming to refine against charges of promoting base gratifications. The core distinction lies in commensurability: quantitative hedonists like Bentham view pleasures as fungible, differing only in amount, which facilitates objective summation but invites for equating trivial with profound experiences if quantities match. Qualitative proponents like Mill introduce non-quantifiable superiority, judged experientially, yet this risks inconsistency with strict hedonism by implying values beyond felt , potentially smuggling pluralistic under a hedonic . Empirical challenges persist, as no direct metric exists for quality, relying instead on subjective testimony from "competent" evaluators, whose preferences may reflect cultural or dispositional biases rather than universal hedonic truth. Ancient precedents echo this divide, with favoring immediate sensory intensity (quantitative) and Epicureans emphasizing stable, moderated pleasures (proto-qualitative).

Core Concepts

Pleasure and Pain as Fundamental

In hedonistic philosophies, and constitute the foundational categories of experience and valuation, serving as the primary drivers of and the sole determinants of intrinsic worth. Psychological hedonism posits that all actions are ultimately motivated by the pursuit of and the avoidance of , a view articulated by thinkers like , who asserted that "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, and ." This doctrine suggests that even seemingly altruistic or principled behaviors reduce to hedonic calculations, where individuals seek net positive sensations, supported by introspective observation that desires align with anticipated affective states. Axiological hedonism extends this by claiming that pleasure alone holds positive intrinsic value, while pain holds negative intrinsic value, rendering all other purported goods derivative. Ancient proponents, such as the under , identified pleasure as a smooth bodily motion and pain as a rough one, emphasizing immediate sensory experiences as the bedrock of well-being without appeal to abstract virtues. refined this by equating the highest pleasure with the absence of pain—ataraxia in the mind and aponia in the body—arguing that stable, non-sensory tranquility supersedes transient kinetic pleasures, as prolonged agitation leads to inevitable pain. Bentham formalized this fundamentality through the hedonic calculus, a method to quantify pleasures and by factors including intensity, duration, certainty, , fecundity, purity, and extent, enabling rational comparison to guide actions toward maximal net . Empirical support for these claims draws from universal human responses to stimuli, where prompts aversion and reinforcement, observable in behavioral patterns across and corroborated by neuroscientific findings on reward pathways, though critics contend that such reductions overlook non-hedonic motivations like or . This framework underscores hedonism's causal realism, positing and as irreducible primitives shaping decision-making without intermediary ethical constructs.

Happiness, Eudaimonia, and Well-Being

In hedonistic , constitutes the net balance of over pain, with serving as the sole intrinsic good and the ultimate aim of human action. , a key proponent, defined the highest form of as ataraxia, a tranquil state of freedom from mental disturbance, attainable through , , and avoidance of unnecessary desires rather than through extravagant sensory indulgences. This conception posits not as fleeting ecstasy but as a stable equilibrium achieved by fulfilling natural needs and cultivating rational expectations. Eudaimonia, as articulated by , diverges sharply from this hedonic framework, representing human flourishing realized through the rational exercise of over a complete life, where emerges as a concomitant rather than the defining end. critiqued pure hedonism as akin to the satisfactions of brute animals, insufficient for distinctly human fulfillment, insisting that true demands purposeful activity aligned with one's capacities and the mean between extremes. Hedonists, in response, might contend that virtuous pursuits derive their value from the pleasures they generate, subordinating eudaimonia to hedonic calculus, though maintained that pursuing for pleasure's sake undermines its authenticity. Contemporary empirical research in distinguishes hedonic well-being—encompassing positive affect, , and pleasure maximization, resonant with hedonism—from eudaimonic well-being, which emphasizes personal growth, , purpose, and realization of potential. Studies reveal that while hedonic activities yield immediate boosts in mood, they often succumb to hedonic adaptation, wherein gains in happiness dissipate over time due to , as illustrated by the limited long-term impact of events like income increases or lottery wins on . In contrast, eudaimonic pursuits correlate with sustained psychological , lower markers, and greater resilience, suggesting that meaning-driven activities buffer against and foster deeper fulfillment independent of transient pleasures. Integrated models propose that optimal arises from balancing both, yet hedonism's strict prioritization of pleasure encounters empirical challenges, as unchecked hedonic focus can engender dissatisfaction or dependency, underscoring causal limits in equating solely with sensory or emotional states. Nonetheless, hedonistic frameworks persist in valuing subjective experience as the arbiter of , influencing utilitarian ethics and .

Hedonic Measurement and Challenges

Quantitative hedonists, such as Jeremy Bentham, proposed systematic methods to evaluate actions by calculating net pleasure, using the felicific calculus that weighs factors including intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. This approach treats pleasure as commensurable and aggregable, allowing comparison across experiences via arithmetic summation. However, implementing the calculus faces practical difficulties, as assigning precise numerical values to subjective intensities remains arbitrary and prone to individual bias. In contemporary empirical research, hedonic states are often measured through self-reported (SWB) scales, such as ratings on a 0-10 or frequency of positive versus negative affect. These tools correlate moderately with objective indicators like income and health, supporting their validity for capturing hedonic tone. Yet, challenges persist: respondents may exhibit biases, where recent events disproportionately influence reports, or social desirability effects that inflate positive responses. Moreover, cultural differences in response styles—such as East Asians underreporting compared to Westerners—complicate cross-group comparisons. A core empirical challenge is hedonic adaptation, where individuals rapidly return to a stable baseline after positive or negative events, undermining the reliability of snapshot measurements for long-term hedonic value. Studies, including longitudinal tracking of and accident victims, demonstrate that initial boosts or drops in SWB dissipate within months, with winners reporting no greater than controls after . This "" suggests that hedonic gains are transient, as adaptation mechanisms recalibrate sensory and emotional responses to maintain equilibrium, though evidence indicates incomplete adaptation to some changes like noise or relationships. Philosophically, interpersonal aggregation of hedonic units encounters the problem of incommensurability, as one person's intense but brief may not equate to another's mild but prolonged one without a neutral metric, rendering utilitarian calculations theoretically indeterminate. offers potential proxies, such as release correlating with reward anticipation, but these capture anticipation rather than consummatory and vary by context. Overall, while measurement advances enable proxy assessments, the intrinsic subjectivity of hedonic experience resists precise, objective quantification.

Historical Development

Ancient Foundations

The origins of hedonism in trace back to pre-Socratic thinkers like (c. 460–370 BCE), who emphasized euthymia (cheerfulness or good spirits) as a state of mental tranquility achieved through moderation and rational avoidance of disturbances, influencing later hedonistic conceptions of stable pleasure. Democritus viewed cheerfulness as arising from a balanced life free from excessive desires, positing it as superior to mere sensory indulgence due to its sustainability amid atomic flux. Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435–366 BCE), a pupil of , founded the , which formalized pleasure (hēdonē) as the highest good and sole intrinsic value, prioritizing immediate, bodily sensations over future-oriented or intellectual pursuits. argued that pleasures are known only through personal experience and should be pursued actively, with pain to be avoided at all costs, rejecting stable states like later advocated in favor of kinetic, momentary enjoyments. This radical stance, detailed in fragments preserved by later authors like , positioned virtue as instrumental to securing pleasures rather than an end in itself. Epicurus (341–270 BCE) developed a more nuanced hedonism through his school, identifying pleasure as the (end) of life but equating the supreme form with ataraxia (freedom from mental disturbance) and aponia (absence of bodily pain), favoring static, long-term tranquility over transient stimulations. Drawing from Democritean , Epicurus taught that natural, necessary desires—like food and friendship—yield enduring satisfaction, while vain pursuits lead to unrest, as outlined in his Letter to Menoeceus. Unlike , Epicureans valued prudent calculation to maximize net pleasure over time, integrating friendship and philosophical reflection as higher pleasures. These ancient strains diverged on pleasure's nature—sensory flux for versus equilibrated stability for Epicureans—but converged on its supremacy, challenging Platonic and Aristotelian ideals of form or as ultimate goods through direct appeals to human motivation and sensory evidence.

Medieval and Early Modern Shifts

![Oil painting of a bearded man with thin gray hair](./assets/Thomas_Hobbes_portraitportrait In medieval philosophy, dominated by Christian theology, hedonistic doctrines faced systematic critique and marginalization. St. Augustine (354–430 CE), in works such as Confessions and City of God, rejected Epicurean hedonism by arguing that human desires seek not transient sensory pleasures but an eternal, immutable good found in God, viewing worldly pleasures as inferior and potentially idolatrous distractions from divine fulfillment. This Platonic-inflected subordination of bodily pleasures to spiritual ends permeated Christian thought, portraying hedonism as incompatible with and moral order. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE) further integrated Aristotelian ethics into Christian framework, positing that true happiness (beatitudo) consists in the intellectual vision of God rather than sensory pleasure, though he acknowledged pleasures as natural concomitants of virtuous acts when aligned with reason and divine law. Aquinas's Summa Theologica (1265–1274) emphasized a hierarchy where pleasures serve higher goods like virtue and contemplation, critiquing pure hedonism as reductive and failing to account for the soul's ultimate telos, thus reinforcing medieval theology's prioritization of eternal over temporal felicity. The marked a revival of hedonistic elements amid and mechanistic philosophy, shifting from theological suppression toward secular psychological and motivational accounts. (1588–1679), in (1651), advanced a materialist psychological hedonism, asserting that human actions stem from appetites seeking pleasure—conceived broadly as power and avoidance of death—and aversions to , with societal order emerging from self-interested calculations rather than divine mandate. John Locke (1632–1704) complemented this in (1690), describing and pain as the "great hinges" upon which human will turns, motivating pursuit of happiness through experience and reason, though tempered by moral law and . Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713), in Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (1711), critiqued egoistic hedonism like Hobbes's while introducing a where benevolent pleasures from virtue and social harmony outweigh selfish ones, bridging psychological hedonism toward proto-utilitarian sentiments. These developments reflected a causal realism in viewing as a primary driver of behavior, unbound by medieval , paving the way for Enlightenment expansions.

Enlightenment and Utilitarian Era

During the Enlightenment, philosophers increasingly framed human motivation and in terms of and , building on empirical observations of behavior. (1711–1776) posited that and serve as the primary measures of ethical value and drive emotional life, influencing moral sentiments through and . Hume's approach integrated hedonistic elements with social passions, rejecting pure by emphasizing benevolence and resentment as motivators beyond self-interest. This foundation informed the utilitarian era, where (1748–1832) formalized hedonism into ethical . Bentham's "greatest happiness principle" declared as the sole intrinsic good and pain as the sole intrinsic evil, advocating actions that maximize net across society. He developed the hedonic calculus to quantify by factors including intensity, duration, , , fecundity, purity, and extent, enabling rational assessment of moral choices. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Bentham's intellectual successor, refined this quantitative framework by introducing qualitative distinctions among pleasures. Mill argued that intellectual and moral pleasures—termed "higher"—possess superior value to sensory "lower" ones, even if the latter are more intense, based on the preferences of competent judges who have experienced both. This modification aimed to elevate beyond crude , prioritizing mental cultivation for greater overall happiness, though critics contend it undermines strict hedonism by importing non-pleasurable criteria. Bentham and Mill's theories shifted hedonism from individual pursuit to social policy, influencing reforms in , , and by equating moral progress with measurable increases in aggregate pleasure. Bentham's prison design, for instance, sought to deter crime through calculated pain avoidance, exemplifying applied hedonistic calculus. Mill extended this to , arguing in (1859) that individual freedoms foster diverse pleasures essential to societal . These developments marked hedonism's evolution into a systematic ethical , grounded in observable human responses rather than divine command or .

20th- and 21st-Century Evolutions

In the early , hedonism encountered substantial philosophical opposition, particularly from , who in (1903) contended that identifying "good" solely with commits the , as does not exhaust intrinsic value; Moore posited that states of consciousness involving or personal affections possess value independent of . This critique contributed to hedonism's waning influence in Anglo-American ethics, supplanted by and non-naturalist theories amid broader skepticism toward reducing ethical value to sensory states. Mid-century developments further eroded strict hedonism through thought experiments like Robert Nozick's "" in (1974), which posits a device delivering maximal simulated pleasure; Nozick argued that most individuals would reject plugging in, preferring actual achievements and connections over optimized experiences, thereby challenging both psychological hedonism's motivational claims and ethical hedonism's value theory by highlighting the instrumental worth of reality contact. Empirical surveys, such as one in 2018, corroborated this, with only 17-42% of respondents opting to connect depending on conditions, underscoring resistance to pure experiential hedonism. Despite this trajectory, late 20th- and 21st-century scholarship has prompted reconsiderations. Roger Crisp's "Hedonism Reconsidered" (2006) traces hedonism's decline to qualms over pleasure's heterogeneity and empirical gaps but advocates its revival, integrating psychological findings on subjective well-being and arguing that pleasures form a unified class amenable to ethical prioritization without Mill's contested qualitative hierarchy. Similarly, Michel Onfray, in A Hedonist Manifesto: The Power to Exist (French original 2009; English 2015), champions a materialist hedonism rooted in Epicurean principles, rejecting Platonic idealism and asceticism to promote autonomous pursuit of bodily pleasures as counter to modern melancholy and ideological disconnections. Contemporary defenses extend this, with Chris Heathwood's 2010 paper offering a new argument for hedonism about , positing that and alone determine prudential value through phenomenal attitudes—liking or disliking experiences—countering desire-based rivals by emphasizing experiential immediacy over satisfaction of propositional desires. These evolutions reflect hedonism's adaptation to analytic rigor and empirical insights, though it remains marginal compared to pluralistic or preference-oriented ethics, with ongoing debates over 's measurability and sufficiency amid neuroscientific advances in affective states.

Philosophical Criticisms

Paradox of Hedonism

The posits that the deliberate and exclusive pursuit of as an end in itself often undermines the attainment of that , whereas emerges more reliably as a of pursuing other intrinsic goods or activities. This self-defeating dynamic arises because focused attention on heightens and , which can generate anxiety, distraction, or dissatisfaction, thereby reducing the intensity or duration of the pleasurable experience itself. articulated this in his 1874 work The Methods of Ethics, describing it as the "fundamental ," where an over-predominant impulse toward "defeats its own aim" by interfering with the natural conditions under which typically occurs, such as absorption in non-pleasure-oriented tasks. The idea traces back further, with noting in 1726 that direct efforts to secure happiness render it elusive, as they conflict with the dispersed nature of human desires. Philosophically, the paradox challenges psychological hedonism—the thesis that all motivations reduce to desire for —by suggesting that if pleasure were the sole intrinsic aim, agents would be trapped in a motivational loop where of that aim precludes fulfillment. Explanations invoke causal mechanisms: pleasure often depends on unselfconscious engagement or external contingencies, such as social bonds or productive work, which a pleasure-centric focus disrupts; for instance, savoring a meal requires attention to the food rather than to one's enjoyment of it. In ethical hedonism, this implies that maximizing utility may require endorsing non-hedonic motives, complicating Sidgwick's utilitarian framework where agents must sometimes feign or cultivate desires for ends beyond pleasure to achieve greater overall pleasure. Responses from hedonists, such as , emphasize moderated pursuits like tranquility over impulsive , arguing that the affects crude hedonism but not a disciplined variant that integrates or as instrumental to stable pleasure. Empirical support emerges from on hedonic and pursuit. Studies indicate that explicit strategies to boost mood, such as monitoring one's levels, correlate with decreased due to heightened self-focus and unmet expectations, as seen in experiments where participants instructed to maximize positive affect reported lower subsequent satisfaction compared to controls. Longitudinal data from , including analyses of surveys, show that self-reported attempts to "chase " predict reduced over time, often because they overlook thresholds where pleasures normalize without deeper fulfillment from meaningful goals. Economic models reinforce this, finding that prosocial behaviors yielding indirect pleasure (e.g., ) outperform self-directed hedonic consumption in sustaining welfare, as evidenced by randomized trials where charitable giving elevated reported more durably than personal spending. These findings align with causal realism, where pleasure's realization hinges on non-hedonic pathways, though critics note potential confounds like in self-reports, urging caution in generalizing from correlational data.

Reductionism and Intrinsic Value Disputes

Hedonism's reductionist stance posits that all intrinsic value derives solely from , with as the sole intrinsic disvalue, thereby collapsing ethical and axiological considerations into hedonic . This view, advanced by figures like and , treats as reducible to net accumulation, dismissing other candidates for intrinsic goodness such as or as merely instrumental to hedonic outcomes. Critics argue this oversimplifies human valuation, ignoring phenomena where individuals prioritize non-hedonic elements, as evidenced by empirical intuitions against simulated maximal . A foundational dispute stems from G.E. Moore's open-question argument in (1903), which challenges hedonism's identification of "good" with "" as committing the . Moore contends that querying "Is good?" remains meaningfully open rather than analytically true, indicating that goodness constitutes a non-natural, simple property irreducible to any natural state like . This critique undermines hedonism's claim to exhaust intrinsic value, suggesting instead a plurality of irreducible goods, including aesthetic appreciation and personal relations, which retain worth independent of associated . Robert Nozick's , introduced in (1974), further contests hedonism's by positing a device that delivers unbounded simulated pleasures indistinguishable from reality. Nozick observes that most people decline to connect, valuing not merely felt experiences but active agency, authentic connections, and real-world efficacy—factors hedonism deems extrinsically valuable only insofar as they produce pleasure. Empirical studies corroborate this intuition, with participants favoring unplugged lives despite hedonic equivalence, implying intrinsic worth in non-hedonic pursuits like achievement and . Hedonists counter that such preferences reflect false beliefs about machine efficacy or unaccounted pains of disconnection, yet the widespread refusal underscores a causal realism wherein value adheres to objective states beyond subjective sensation. These disputes highlight hedonism's vulnerability to charges of experiential , where reducing value to fails to account for intuitions privileging truth, beauty, or duty—evident in historical philosophies like Aristotle's, which affirm as comprising virtuous activity over mere hedonic flux. While hedonism's empirical appeal lies in 's observably motivational role, critics maintain that causal chains from to broader goods reveal , not intrinsic, primacy, preserving pluralism in axiology.

Conflicts with Virtue Ethics and Duties

, in the , rejects ethical hedonism by arguing that pleasure, while not inherently evil, cannot constitute the ultimate human good, as it fails to distinguish rational activity proper to humans from mere animal sensation. Instead, holds that arises from habitual excellence in character and , where pleasures attendant to virtuous acts—such as the satisfaction of just —complete but do not define the activity itself. Hedonism's prioritization of pleasure as the end risks subordinating virtue to sensation, potentially endorsing base indulgences over the mean of temperance, which identifies as essential for a flourishing life. This tension manifests in virtue ethics' emphasis on intrinsic goods like courage or justice, cultivated for their own sake rather than as means to hedonic states; for instance, enduring hardship for honor may diminish immediate pleasure yet aligns with phronesis, the practical wisdom hedonism undervalues. Critics from this tradition contend that hedonistic reductionism overlooks how virtues foster long-term stability in character, whereas unchecked pleasure-seeking erodes self-mastery, leading to akrasia or vice. Deontological frameworks, exemplified by Kant's , further clash with hedonism by grounding in absolute duties derived from reason, not empirical calculations of pleasure or pain. In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant critiques happiness-based principles as heteronomous, dependent on subjective inclinations that vary and thus cannot yield universal law; moral actions must conform to the , such as treating humanity as an end, irrespective of hedonic outcomes. Hedonism, as a form of , permits actions like or if they maximize aggregate pleasure, violating deontological prohibitions on using rational beings instrumentally. Such conflicts highlight hedonism's potential to undermine obligations like or restitution, where demands restraint even amid personal ; for example, a hedonist might justify for sensory gain, whereas deems it inherently wrong as a breach of rational . This -centric view posits that requires transcendence of hedonic impulses, preserving integrity against situational pleasures that could rationalize harm to others' .

Empirical Evidence and Modern Research

Psychological Studies on Adaptation and Pursuit

Psychological research on hedonic adaptation demonstrates that individuals tend to return to a relatively stable baseline level of following significant positive or negative life events, a phenomenon termed the . This concept was introduced by Brickman and Campbell in their 1971 paper, which argued that people adapt to improved circumstances, leading to only temporary boosts in . Empirical support came from a 1978 study by Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman, which compared 22 major , 22 matched controls, and 29 paraplegic accident victims; winners reported overall levels similar to controls and derived less pleasure from everyday activities, while victims experienced a lasting but partial decline in , indicating incomplete . Subsequent studies have refined this model, showing that adaptation to positive stimuli occurs rapidly but is not universal; for instance, Lyubomirsky's review highlighted that joys from triumphs and relationships diminish over time due to , yet deliberate practices like expressing or introducing variety can mitigate adaptation rates. The Hedonic Adaptation Prevention (HAP) model, proposed by Lyubomirsky and colleagues, posits two primary routes to erosion of well-being gains—habituation and shifting standards—and suggests interventions such as and change to sustain pleasure from positive changes. Research indicates that adaptation varies by event type, with yielding more persistent happiness increases than income gains, challenging strict predictions. Studies on the pursuit of reveal potential drawbacks, including paradoxical effects where explicit efforts to maximize reduce it. In experiments by Mauss et al. (2011), participants induced to highly value reacted less positively to uplifting stimuli compared to controls, suggesting that self-focused pursuit can impair natural emotional responses. This aligns with findings that hedonic pursuits, such as consumption for , show weak and inconsistent links to long-term , often due to rapid , whereas eudaimonic activities like purposeful yield more durable benefits. Overall, these results imply that unmitigated hedonistic strategies may necessitate perpetual novelty to counteract , yet risk in affective intensity.

Neuroscientific Insights into Pleasure Mechanisms

Neuroscientific research distinguishes between the motivational drive toward rewards, termed "wanting," and the actual sensory experience of pleasure, termed "liking." Wanting is primarily mediated by the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system, originating in the (VTA) and projecting to the () and , which signals reward prediction errors and incentivizes pursuit of stimuli like or drugs. In contrast, liking—the core hedonic affect—arises from a narrower set of opioid-sensitive "hedonic hotspots" within limbic structures, independent of surges. Hedonic hotspots are discrete subregions, such as the medial shell of the NAc and posterior , where mu-opioid stimulation via microinjections in amplifies affective "liking" reactions, measurable as increased expressions of pleasure (e.g., protrusions for ). These hotspots, identified through work by Kent Berridge and colleagues, generate intense pleasure "gloss" on sensory inputs like but cover only about 10% of the NAc shell volume, indicating pleasure's localized neural basis rather than a diffuse brain-wide process. Additional hotspots exist in the and insula, where optogenetic activation enhances hedonic impact without altering motivation. Endocannabinoids and orexins also modulate these sites, broadening the neurochemical palette beyond opioids. This dissociation challenges simplistic hedonic models by showing that dopamine release correlates more with anticipation and learning than with pleasure consummation; for instance, addicts often exhibit high wanting but diminished liking due to opioid downregulation in hotspots. Human imaging supports this, with fMRI revealing NAc activation during reward expectation but hedonic hotspots lighting up during consumption peaks. For hedonism, these findings imply that maximizing pleasure requires targeting specific circuits, yet tolerance and adaptation limit sustained intensity, as repeated stimulation desensitizes hotspots. Pleasure circuits integrate with broader affective networks, including the for aversion offsets, but remain evolutionarily tuned for brief, survival-linked bursts rather than indefinite escalation. Empirical from studies confirm that damaging hotspots abolishes liking without fully impairing wanting, underscoring causal specificity. These mechanisms reveal as a modular, chemically gated process, not a monolithic state amenable to unbounded pursuit.

Economic Models and Welfare Critiques

Neoclassical economic models often incorporate hedonistic assumptions by positing that individuals maximize , interpreted as net or satisfaction from consumption and choices. This framework traces to influences, where rational agents select options yielding the highest subjective value, akin to pursuing greater over pain. In , hedonistic suggests aggregating individual pleasures to evaluate policies, as in Benthamite social welfare functions that sum cardinal utilities representing levels. Critiques highlight that utility maximization conflates decision utility (from choices) with experienced utility (actual pleasure), leading to anomalies where behaviors do not align with reported . Hedonic adaptation, where individuals revert to baseline satisfaction after positive changes like income gains, undermines hedonistic welfare measures; for instance, the shows that while richer people within societies report higher , national income growth since the 1950s has not yielded proportional well-being increases across developed economies. Empirical studies confirm adaptation rates vary, with half-lives of happiness effects from events like (about 2 years) or (partial recovery over time), implying policies targeting pleasure via material gains yield . Further objections draw from Robert Nozick's , which posits a device delivering maximal simulated pleasures; most reject it, suggesting welfare requires real achievements over mere sensations, challenging economic reliance on hedonic metrics for interpersonal comparisons or policy evaluation. Preference-based emerged partly to evade these issues by focusing on revealed choices rather than introspected pleasures, though critics argue this sidesteps empirical welfare realities like biases. Alternative approaches, such as capability theories, prioritize objective functioning over subjective states, contending that hedonism neglects causal factors like agency and health in true welfare assessment.

Societal and Cultural Applications

Influences in Ethics and Policy

Hedonism exerts influence in primarily through its role as the foundational value theory for classical , asserting that alone constitutes intrinsic good and pain intrinsic evil. , in his 1789 treatise An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, developed hedonistic by defining moral actions as those promoting the greatest balance of over pain for the largest number, encapsulated in the principle of utility. Bentham's hedonic calculus operationalizes this by quantifying pleasures and pains across seven dimensions—intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent—enabling a purportedly objective ethical evaluation that prioritizes empirical maximization of net . This framework contrasts with deontological by subordinating rules to consequentialist outcomes measured in hedonic terms, influencing subsequent thinkers like , who refined it with qualitative distinctions among pleasures while retaining hedonism's core. In policy applications, hedonistic utilitarianism manifests in decision tools like cost-benefit analysis, where benefits (pleasures) and costs (pains) are weighed to guide regulatory and legislative choices, reflecting Bentham's vision of governance as systematic pleasure optimization. Historical examples include Bentham's advocacy for legal reforms in Britain, such as codifying laws and redesigning prisons via the model to deter efficiently by associating violation with certain , thereby enhancing societal through . In the United States, the of 1935 exemplifies utilitarian policy, enacted to mitigate mass economic from the by providing old-age benefits, calculated to yield greater aggregate happiness than unaddressed destitution. Modern policy domains continue this legacy, with hedonistic principles informing reforms, such as drug sentencing guidelines that apply to balance punishment's deterrent pleasure (reduced crime) against incarceration's pains. Public health responses, including resource triage, have invoked utilitarian hedonism to prioritize interventions maximizing lives and minimizing suffering, as policymakers weighed mortality pains against lockdown-induced economic displeasures. further integrates hedonism by advocating policy evaluation via metrics over GDP, positing that true welfare resides in subjective pleasure states, as evidenced in initiatives like national surveys influencing budget allocations. These applications underscore hedonism's causal role in shifting policy from absolutist or rights-based paradigms toward empirical, pleasure-centric , though critics argue it risks aggregating individual pains in pursuit of collective gains.

Role in Psychology and Lifestyle Movements

In , hedonism underpins the theory of psychological hedonism, which asserts that all human motivations derive from desires to experience pleasure and evade pain. Empirical investigations, however, demonstrate that direct pursuit of hedonic states often fails to produce enduring due to hedonic adaptation, wherein individuals habituate to pleasurable stimuli and revert to a genetic and personality-determined baseline level of . This process, termed the , was conceptualized by Brickman and Campbell in 1971 as a mechanism explaining why windfalls or setbacks yield only transient shifts in . A landmark 1978 study by Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman examined self-reported happiness among major lottery winners, paraplegics from accidents, and matched controls, revealing that winners rated their current happiness only marginally higher than controls and significantly lower than before winning, while deriving less enjoyment from mundane daily events like talking to friends. Paraplegics, conversely, reported no greater misery than controls post-adaptation, underscoring the treadmill's bidirectional operation. Later longitudinal research, including meta-analyses, estimates that adaptation accounts for about 70% of the variance in long-term happiness responses to life events, with only around 30% attributable to intentional activities or mindset changes that might mitigate it. These findings inform positive psychology's distinction between hedonic —transient —and eudaimonic —derived from purpose and growth—which correlates more strongly with sustained outcomes like lower depression rates. Over-reliance on hedonic strategies, such as monitoring one's levels, has been linked to reduced positive affect and increased negative emotions in experimental settings. In lifestyle movements, hedonism shapes emerging trends like neo-hedonism among , characterized by value-aligned indulgences that blend sensory pleasures with wellness, , and community focus, such as sober-curious festivals or mindful clubbing experiences. This shift prioritizes experiential spending—60% of and Gen Z preferring it over savings—over material accumulation, reinterpreting hedonistic rites like partying to include metrics like recovery and inclusivity. Proponents frame this as "healthy hedonism," advocating simple, physiologically supportive pleasures to enhance long-term without excess, potentially reducing stress via moderated dopamine-seeking behaviors. Yet, psychological evidence tempers enthusiasm, as even intentional hedonic practices succumb to , prompting calls for integrating to avoid and potential self-control erosion.

Religious and Conservative Counterperspectives

Religious traditions, particularly Abrahamic faiths, have historically critiqued hedonism as a subordination of spiritual or communal obligations to sensory gratification, often equating it with moral corruption or deviation from divine will. In , scriptural injunctions emphasize and prioritization of eternal rewards over temporal pleasures; for instance, instructs followers to "deny himself, and take up his daily" (Luke 9:23, NIV), framing the pursuit of worldly enjoyment as antithetical to discipleship. This stance manifests in ascetic practices and warnings against the "desires of the flesh," as in :16-17, where yielding to such desires conflicts with the Spirit's guidance. Critics of modern reinterpretations like "" argue that even pleasure derived from God must not eclipse commands to rejoice amid suffering or , as in :12, underscoring indifference to personal comfort for higher fidelity. Islamic doctrine similarly condemns hedonism by regulating pleasures to prevent excess, viewing unchecked pursuit of (worldly life) as a distraction from (hereafter); the Prophet Muhammad warned against making enjoyment the life's goal, promoting instead measured enjoyment within bounds to avoid israf (extravagance). collections reinforce this by prescribing remedies against hedonistic tendencies, such as and charity, which curb self-indulgence and foster (God-consciousness). Judaism, while affirming permissible pleasures as part of divine creation—evident in celebrations like —rejects hedonism's elevation of physical gratification above ethical commandments (mitzvot), associating it with selfishness, emotional desensitization, and communal erosion. Rabbinic teachings navigate between and excess, as in the Talmud's endorsement of balanced enjoyment but critique of pursuits that prioritize hedonic satisfaction over holiness or covenantal duties. Conservative perspectives, drawing from thinkers like and modern analysts, oppose hedonism for undermining social order, familial stability, and long-term welfare in favor of immediate gratification, which empirical data links to diminished life meaning and relational fragility. Such views posit that hedonistic norms contribute to societal decay, including rising and declining birth rates, as unchecked pleasure-seeking erodes virtues like restraint and essential for communal flourishing. Studies corroborate this by showing self-identified conservatives report greater purpose and than liberals, who score higher on hedonistic values yet lower on moral foundations tied to , , and sanctity—suggesting restraint yields deeper fulfillment than pleasure maximization. Conservatives thus advocate duty-bound living, arguing that hedonism's causal chain—from personal to institutional weakening—manifests in observable metrics like dissolution rates, where pleasure-prioritizing cultures exhibit higher instability.

References

  1. https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/hedonism.html
  2. https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/H.pdf
  3. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/hedonism
  4. https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/a/a_03/a_03_s/a_03_s_que/a_03_s_que.html
  5. https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jbs/article/id/579/
  6. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.004/--new-defense-of-hedonism-about-well-being?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext
  7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
  8. https://iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848615001612
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3008658/
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-rawls-lexicon/hedonism/602FBE3D4ACFED4422C43BCCBA3BAB48
  12. https://brill.com/view/journals/jmp/18/4/article-p387_387.xml
  13. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-notes/6138385
  14. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/bentham/ipml/ipml.c01.html
  15. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-hedonism
  16. https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism/posts/3982093182028275/
  17. https://positivepsychology.com/hedonism/
  18. https://www.thecollector.com/hedonism-philosophy-pleasure/
  19. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
  20. https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedonism.html
  21. https://iep.utm.edu/experience-machine/
  22. https://iep.utm.edu/paradox-of-hedonism/
  23. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/269rw6/what_are_some_of_the_arguments_against_hedonism/
  24. https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html
  25. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2020/09/26/john-stuart-mill-on-the-good-life-higher-quality-pleasures/
  26. http://carneades.pomona.edu/2019-Ethics/05.Mill.html
  27. https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/13376/A-Level/Philosophy-and-Ethics/Explain-the-difference-between-quantitative-and-qualitative-hedonism/
  28. https://iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/recent-critics-of-mills-qualitative-hedonism/5B95178C2D910682056F52BBFBE548DE
  30. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/hedonism/
  31. https://iep.utm.edu/cyrenaics/
  32. https://donaldrobertson.name/2016/05/21/epicurus-versus-the-cyrenaics/
  33. https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/3813-scientific-support-for-psychological-hedonism/
  34. https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/epicurus/
  35. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/
  36. https://positivepsychology.com/hedonic-vs-eudaimonic-wellbeing/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11148302/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2504322/
  39. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-95601-x
  40. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5930870/
  42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK189563/
  43. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/4/1/15/112974/Advances-and-Open-Questions-in-the-Science-of
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16719675/
  45. https://sonjalyubomirsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Lyubomirsky-2011.pdf
  46. https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-020-00142-5
  47. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/
  48. https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10380.pdf
  49. https://www.utilitarianism.com/birth-hedonism.pdf
  50. https://www.thecollector.com/epicurus-philosopher-pleasure-moral-imperative/
  51. https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/pleasure-is-the-way/
  52. https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/assumption-college/education/lesson-2-study-well/35371671
  53. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/foundations/et101-essentials-of-christian-ethics/et101-02-augustine-and-aquinas
  54. https://polsci.institute/western-political-thought/influence-st-augustine-thomas-aquinas-political-thought/
  55. https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/schools/utilitarian.htm
  56. https://iep.utm.edu/british-empiricism/
  57. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/354/edited_volume/chapter/2778688/pdf
  58. https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jbs/article/id/579/?form=MG0AV3
  59. https://davidhume.org/scholarship/papers/millican/2018_Hume%27s_Decisive_Turn_ppt.pdf
  60. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
  61. https://iep.utm.edu/jeremy-bentham/
  62. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
  63. http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/chapter-iii
  64. https://philpapers.org/rec/CRIHR
  65. https://philosophybreak.com/articles/nozick-experience-machine-vs-hedonism-should-you-plug-in/
  66. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2017.1406600
  67. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00551.x
  68. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-hedonist-manifesto/9780231171267/
  69. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.004/--new-defense-of-hedonism-about-well-being
  70. https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedonism-reconsidered.html
  71. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46743/46743-h/46743-h.htm
  72. https://philarchive.org/archive/DIEETP
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048402.2018.1483409
  74. https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/_flysystem/fedora/pdf/GLB_27_2022_2_07.pdf
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325872260_Explaining_the_Paradox_of_Hedonism
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004727270700062X
  77. https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstreams/f9a9c50e-48b2-4c7b-a1ef-4df6655974d5/download
  78. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore-moral/
  79. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/
  80. https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=par_fsresearch
  81. https://oyvindevenstad.substack.com/p/aristotle-on-ethical-hedonism-2-of
  82. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/46616/why-was-aristotle-not-a-hedonist-nicomachean-ethics
  83. https://www.quora.com/What-is-Aristotles-view-on-hedonism-and-the-golden-mean
  84. https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/virtue-ethics/
  85. https://www.philosopher.eu/texts/kants-ethics-summary/
  86. https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/saec-2025-0009
  87. https://www.quora.com/Is-psychological-hedonism-compatible-with-Kantian-deontological-ethics
  88. https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=43054
  89. https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethics-101/moral-traditions/
  90. https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/hedonic-treadmill
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/690806/
  92. https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/1978-brickman.pdf
  93. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22361725/
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/hedonic-adaptation
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3160511/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10897990/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5171207/
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315001336
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17079516/
  100. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/research-overview/neuroscience-of-linking-and-wanting/
  101. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.31.606067v1
  102. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1705753114
  103. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2821%2901337-3
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938420304662
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3274778/
  106. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1073858406293154
  107. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-13385-001
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356086608_Academic_discipline_of_economics_as_hedonist_philosophy
  109. https://www.fastercapital.com/content/Utility-Maximization--The-Pursuit-of-Happiness--Utility-Maximization-in-Modern-Economics.html
  110. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/economics-and-philosophy/article/hedonism-and-welfare-economics/90A65CA05B0E5E25F48D02DA4D206AE0
  111. https://oar.princeton.edu/rt4ds/file/6369/Kahneman-2006-Anomalies%2B-%2BUtility%2Bmaximization.pdf
  112. https://econfix.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/money-happiness-and-hedonic-adaptation/
  113. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21365/w21365.pdf
  114. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/16/4/1189/4797286
  115. https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2019/08/robert-nozick-utility-monsters-and.html
  116. https://www.independent.org/article/2002/09/01/the-failure-of-utilitarian-ethics-in-political-economy/
  117. https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedutil.htm
  118. https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-public-policy-decisions-embody-a-utilitarian-approach-to-moral-reasoning
  119. https://licentiapoetica.com/the-principle-of-utility-and-hedonistic-calculus-81e5ac3ae745
  120. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-government-policies-that-were-conceived-based-on-utilitarian-grounds
  121. https://www.unh.edu/inquiryjournal/blog/2020/04/can-utilitarianism-improve-us-criminal-justice-system-evaluation-punishment-utility-calculus
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7276855/
  123. https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2014/06/02/professor-studies-how-utilitarianism-provides-framework-major-policy-decisions
  124. https://positivepsychology.com/hedonic-treadmill/
  125. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quixotic-dispatches/201607/the-perils-pursuing-pleasure
  126. https://www.tmsw.com/trending/chapter-next-gen-hedonism/
  127. https://whitehutchinson.com/news/lenews/2023/december/article111.shtml
  128. https://wellnessforum.pro/en/conscious-hedonism-the-z-gen-moves-from-nightclubs-to-social-wellness/
  129. https://theconversation.com/what-is-hedonism-and-how-does-it-affect-your-health-78040
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10514018/
  131. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201708/why-hedonism-doesnt-lead-happiness
  132. https://theparticularbaptist.net/2020/03/26/against-christian-hedonism/
  133. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367395600_Hadith_of_the_Prophet_PBUH_as_a_Remedy_for_Hedonism
  134. https://www.chassidusapplied.com/essay/hedonism-and-the-jewish-soul/
  135. https://torahmitzion.org/learn/asceticism-hedonsim-5764/
  136. https://www.gentlemanlibrary.com/against-modern-hedonism/
  137. https://equityresearch.tufts.edu/why-being-conservative-is-correlated-with-higher-happiness/
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6764755/
  139. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691500077X
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.