| Author |
Message
|
| JennLonhon |
 Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:24 pm Post subject: Hedonism and utilitarianism |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 109
Location: Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
|
Some psychologists believe that hedonism is the basic of human motivation In other words, we are selfish, and do only what we thing is good for us, never against us. Of course, this theory is flexible, so that even if something is apparently a totally non selfish act it can still be described as hedonism. The ones that are against the theory that hedonism is the basic and strongest motivation in people, say that there are other motives that can be even stronger than self-conservation. But on the other side, a hedonist can apply hedonism to every situation. Take a firefighter for example. A non-hedonist would say: "He does that because he is a good man and he would help other even at the cost of his own life" but a hedonist will say: "He does that because that work brings him the feeling of internal reward, and he feels as he had done the right thing" so, - selfish cause(he does it for the internal reward) -- hedonism
I personally agree with hedonism, I think that all our deeds are in substance selfish, but people just won't admit it. How about you? What do you think of hedonism?
_________________
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
Mahatma Gandhi
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
Jimmy Hendrix |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Raziell |
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Posts: 316
|
I believe all acts are done in self interest aswell, so i guess that makes me a heathen.
A person that doesent think he is a heathen just lack self-reflection.
I can guarantee you 90% of the people that will oppose hedonism in this thread are those who fit Nietzsches idea of slave morality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
I think it's a kind of reductionism. So it's just one good lens, true in its own terms; not necessarily enlightening. Dawkins tried applying it to "selfish" genes even. At that degree we say the reduction has grown "greedy" because it explains less and less as it descends forever into details.
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
