If you regularly watch philosophy content from a knowledgeable source, it's reasonable to say that you would be a philosophy student! Colleges can't gatekeep your status as a student just as churches can't gatekeep your hypothetical status as a Christian
Here's my attempt at producing a counter example: It questions the assumption that "pleasure points" remain constant for an activity. Reading used to be an effortful activity for me. It produces a lot of pain (from the effort of understanding and going back and forth to the dictionary to learn unfamiliar words) and little pleasure (of learning a new idea). But the more I read books, the easier it is to derive pleasure from it. I consult the dictionary less and less and generally become better at reading. Now I can derive pleasure with minimal effort from reading. At the beginning I prefered to pet my cat than read. Now, reading becomes one of the sources of my greatest pleasure but I had to choose reading over cat petting for a while. Therefore, I argue that some activities have more potential pleasure that may be derived if you cultivate it (like poetry)
I think that's an interesting point. My question would be why did you keep reading even though it provided a seemingly negative utility after you noticed you were gaining little pleasure from a larger amount of effort than that which can be acquired elsewhere. Did you not continue down your path ( which seems very good and substantive to your growth since your grasp of english at this point seems much higher than the average learner and on par with some native speakers) for the promise or perceived reward of a better understanding and therefore use of this language? TYVM
@@InformedZoomer I think I continued because I believed reading will bring me more pleasure minus pain in the long run than, say, cat petting. Assuming I live long enough to realize it (fortunately I did!)
As a hedonist, I'm with Liam. Hedonism takes into account long-term pleasure; this is what separates it from "mainstream" hedonism in which we're doing drugs and destroying ourselves. Long term, the suffering of rehab and possible death outweighs the temporary pleasure. I do wish that Jeffrey covered that most sensible hedonists are just as concerned with the long term as with the short.
The idea that tickling the corpse of a cat removes it from existence is conceptually horrifying. Love this entire channel though, it is such a service to the world to have all this information publicly available in a digestible format.
One of the most obvious counter examples to hedonism is that people don't like being lied to even if that lie is meant to comfort, to protect you from a painful truth. A counter argument to Bentham's statement about the push pin game is that reading poetry gives you a lot more pleasure in the long run since it so enriches your eloquence, imagination and understanding of your feelings. All these qualities will lead you to a better, more pleasant life. A push pin game might develop some skills too, but it is structurally less intellectually stimulating than readjusting your sense of reality through plays on words. What I mean here is that hedonism should not be concerned only with how pleasant something feels in the presence of the stimulus, but also ask to what extent a certain feeling is bound to yield pleasure or pain in the future.
I think the poetry vs. push-pin example Bentham himself gives in the quotation is actually a more plausible counter-example than the ice cream vs. dead cat counter-example. I don't think we generally think of eating ice cream as an intrinsically valuable activity; the whole point is to get pleasure from it, so if somebody gets more pleasure from doing something else that's equally harmless, it stands to reason he should do that instead. Whereas in Bentham's example, we do tend to think of artistic expression and appreciating art (especially art forms associated with elite culture like poetry) as intrinsically more valuable than childish pastimes like push-pin. It seems like one *ought* to learn to enjoy more sophisticated recreational activities like poetry even if push-pin is currently more enjoyable. I don't have the same intuition about eating ice cream; if someone doesn't like ice cream, I don't feel like they ought to prefer it to other activities they do enjoy
It’s practically impossible to produce a counter example to Bentham’s claim since Bentham, and the person trying to produce the counter example are working with different definitions of value. Bentham believes that the only thing that gives something value is pleasure, and the person who is trying to produce the counterexample must think that something else, other than pleasure gives something value. In other words, they are working with different moral theories as to what produces value, it’s like someone saying, “murder is okay,” then someone giving a counter example of someone being murdered, and then saying, “That’s bad, so that is a counter example.” It doesn’t work since the person giving the counterexample believes in a different moral theory, and then assumes that that is the truth when giving the counterexample.
@@afsmapping6092 The point of coming up with a counter-example is not to change Bentham's mind. It's a way of arguing that Bentham's moral theory doesn't capture our moral intuitions, that it leads to severely counterintuitive moral judgments. Since "murder is okay" is an extremely counterintuitive moral judgment to begin with, a counter-example is indeed pointless in that case. But Bentham's theory is at least plausible on the surface: we all tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and many if not all the things we consider right and wrong are explicable in those terms. So a better analogy might be the claim "Murder is *always* wrong." That too is plausible at first glance, but a counter-example like "What about in a situation where murdering a child molester is the only way to save the lives of 10 innocent people?" shows that it leads to some counterintuitive moral judgments.
@@kennethconnally4356 In a situation where you want to show that Bentham’s moral theory is counterintuitive to the modern majority notion of morality, then I agree that a counter example would work. But my point was not to try and say that a counterexample cannot change Bentham’s mind, I was saying that: If an opponent of Bentham wanted to disprove his theory of morality, then he cannot just use counterexamples to say, “Your theory is incompatible, in some cases, with what the majority of people in modern society think is moral,” since that would be an appeal to majority fallacy, and in terms of moral theories, then that is the only way you can use counterexample in the first place: To show that a theory is incompatible with modern majority notions of morality, and so that’s why I said it’s practically impossible to produce I counterexample to Bentham’s claim; I admit, I may have phrased it a bit wrong, but allow me to rephrase it: It is practically impossible to produce a counterexample to Bentham’s claim that is anything beyond, “That is, sometimes, incompatible with modern majority notions of morality.”
@@afsmapping6092 Sorry if I misread your comment there. I agree that a counter-example doesn't exactly "disprove" an ethical theory; it's always possible for the theory-defender to say "sure, that judgment entailed by my theory isn't one you or even most people would make, but it is nonetheless the right judgment." But unless the theory can be shown to contradict itself, it's really the best a critic can do in terms of moral reasoning. When thinking about what's moral, we ultimately have to rely on our intuitions because there aren't any observable "facts" about what's right and wrong.
@@kennethconnally4356 I think the best criticism of an ethical theory, besides a counterexample, is simply asking, “Prove to me your theory is correct.” Because you are right: There are no observable, “facts”, about what is right, and wrong, and that puts the whole concept of morality into doubt. Concerning the human intuitions: Why should we listen to what our body wants us to do? Why is our body the arbiter of morality? But I agree with you. Besides asking, “Prove it,” proving a theory is self-contradictory is the best way to disprove it.
I have 2 questions. 1. Why does hedonism, and Bentham, value pleasure so much? What intrinsic value does it possess over pain? 2. What is value within an activity? Bentham makes sure to clarify within his argument that any difference between two activities that doesn't take into account their level of pleasure is irrelevant, so how can you measure their value?
Kaplan discusses that more in his earlier video on Utilitarianism, around the 5 minute mark: ruclips.net/video/03ESwNlyG8k/видео.html In short, it seems that of any thing (or certainly most things) you can ask "Why is this good?" and have a coherent answer in terms of something else; that is, it's good as a means towards an end. Money is good because it lets you buy stuff and (though his video doesn't include these examples) family are good because they bring you joy, charity is good because it helps people etc. But when asking that of pleasure, there doesn't seem to be any further answer: Pleasure is good because it feels good. We might say of those other things people value that family/love are good because they bring you pleasure, they make you feel good, and charity is good within many broader moral frameworks because it helps bring other people pleasure. By contrast pleasure isn't good because of (for example) certain neurotransmitters in your brain which are a consequence or corollary of pleasure-producing activities; we don't care about the neurotransmitters except inasmuch as they give us pleasure. They and everything else for which we can provide a further answer to the question "Why is this good?" seem by that fact to be means to an end, whereas pleasure is an end in itself. I suppose the question is whether there might in fact be OTHER things we can consider good as ends in themselves, since I doubt many folk would deny that pleasure is indeed good as an end in itself. For example for those who subscribe to such notions, is obedience to God good because it makes God happy, or because it conforms to a moral theory, or because it fulfills humans' intended purpose, or because it gets us to heaven (or is a consequence of what gets us to heaven)... or is obedience to God good purely because it is obedience to God? Hard to think of any better potential other options for good-in-itself than that, and that seems pretty shaky even in terms of how it is likely perceived by many/most of its adherents (never mind whether it's actually a recognizable fact like the good of pleasure in itself).
Hey Jeff, I’m an ethics and religious studies major over at Guilford College. Really enjoying the series as a nice brush up on the basics as I move into my senior thesis studies!
@@nihadali9286 Yea my friend. These are the basics. Wait until you get away from normative thought and into subversive thought. Then things get real wacky.
@@nihadali9286 Hmm... it really depends on where you want to go. As I've said, my major is really "Ethics & Religious Studies," so I mostly deal with subversive theologies. From my lens, the best place to start would probably be James Cone's "A Black Theology of Liberation." For a more secular perspective, you could dive into Foucault, or you could take a look at Kirkegaard's Existentialism which arrives at a more collectivist ethic as opposed to Nietzche's more individualistic existentialism.
To devise a comment on *_"Peter Singer ~ Ordinary People Are Evil"_* Mr. Kaplan has decided to force me to use the comment section that goes to one of his other videos. I will not hesitate to proceed: As to Singer's argument that postulates it is evil NOT to make charitable donations to starving children, wherever they exist in the world, using ALL of one's "extra" money that one would have in his possession at any conceivable moment in time ("extra" being any and all money one possesses that is NOT essential to bare-bones survival)...perhaps it would be better left to celestial beings who live in higher realities ~ higher planes of existence ~ to determine if this actually is an "act of evil." *QUESTION:* is it then, let's just say, "morally wrong" *not* to donate ALL of one's "extra" money to charity? *ANSWER:* Sounds like someone trying to lay a guilt trip on the entire population...let's not get carried away. In American, to be able to retire with a sufficiency of dignity, stability, and security ~ with adequate amounts of health care, recreation, mobility, organic foods, and all of the other essentials required to live out one's life in a state of physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and social wellness ~ to be able to retire with all of the bases covered adequately enough so one does not suffer ~ does not fall into depression, hopelessness, despair ~ and is able to maintain proper physical/ mental/ spiritual health and happiness to one's dying day is the goal, I would argue, that we ALL are struggling and striving to realize. So what _would_ be an appropriate amount of *extra* money any American citizen should feel deserving of, justified to be in possession of, and to have saved up for one's retirement?... How much money should one be able to accumulate ~ to maintain throughout one's life ~ without any guilt ~ in order to avoid destruction, degeneration, death due to poverty and to insure one is able to maintain proper health and a sense of well being to the bitter end? WHAT THEN IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, AFTER ALL? I would say the approximate amount of extra money one should not feel guilty about holding in reserve for past / present / future essential expenses in 2023 would be $2,000,000... Therefore, anyone hoarding an amount of money that exceeds $2mil ~ who, then, is NOT donating ALL monies that exceed this allowable amount is, IMO, morally wrong. "...From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded." _(Luke 12:48)_
Higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Eating ice cream=Lower Pleasure. Listening to this video=Higher Pleasure. Listening to this video while exercising on treadmill is even higher. Playing TV toe vs playing chess? The flip side is the avoidance of pain. Sometimes you have to endure pain for long term benefits. For example going to a dentist to get a tooth pulled could involve at least some pain. , but provide long term pleasure. Also physical therapy to rehabilitate an injury can involve a lot of pain. Hopefully the consequences will be positive. You might regain at least some of the use of what is being rehabilitated. There is also the paradox of the masochist who gets pleasure from pain . Even though it is a "lower order" pleasure. 🤔😏
@@dazednelectro People do have the authority to make such a declaration, you have the authority to disagree. Or you do not have the authority to say nobody has the authority. 😊😁🇬🇧
Pain /pleasure is subjective of course … pain is pleasure when you are aware of the final outcome being pleasure .. it’s simply the road to pleasure - masochist , sure … why is that a bad word
@@kellywillowmacneil5519 IF the person who is receiving the pain has "consented" to it, THEN it could be pleasurable. Then there is the degree of pain that the masochist has consented to .
Sir ! I think JB is talking about nature of one person, I mean that he is thinking that what is valuable or cause of pleasure and what is non-valuable or cause of less pleasure or pain for one person not two different person. Example: A a person having more pleasure in listening Poetry than music for that person I mean for A poetry is more valuable than music. Your example is amazing but it's for two bodies ie X and Y. In my mind counterexample will be as : something are not giving us pleasure but we need to do for other people for example a person is tired and he come to home his wife is ill it's not giving him pleasure but still it is valuable for him to serve her. (I am student of Law not of Philosophy but want to study Philosophy after completion of Law degree... So in my example there will be must some mistakes but it's my try to answer it so I hope you will forgive my mistake Sir)
I agree with the first part. But I think there generally is no way to give a counter example here. If say you find making and knocking over jenga towers gives you more momentary pleasure than poetry, but think poetry is more valuable, then that's because you are only considering momentary pleasure. You have to consider absolutely everything like the pleasure of the imagined prestige engaging in poetry gives you or the pleasure of imagining yourself creating such poetry one day give you. My problem with hedonism is the sheer incalculable of all the relevant variables. I find that knowing about hedonism can make people do the things that provide them less total pleasure because of an over emphasis on momentary pleasure when ones innate sense of value is a natural hedonic calculation.
@@nourmasalkhi9004 exactly, as humans we understand delayed gratification, so in his attempted counter example, one could argue that serving your wife even whilst tired, will result in her treating you more favorably, therefore increasing your pleasure in the long run. People understand reality and base their desires off that, not just pure theory of what is pleasurable in the moment. For most people it’s unpleasant to work, but its far more pleasurable to eat and have shelter than to starve.
bda counter examples.. i raise you mine: A#1 - working out, joy of the activity: -10 (agony) A#2 - gaming, joy of the activity: +10 (fun) yet the value of A#1 is exponentially greater than the value of A#2
I think we should define 'what is valuable' first. If the answer is 'something is valuable if it produces pleasure', then we come to the conclusion that 'more pleasure means more value'. However, taking the conclusion to the extreme, if pleasure is the only thing that we want, shouldn't we do drugs from birth until death and remain high throughout our lives? This seems true to hedonism, but I don't want to believe it. Therefore, the hypothesis that 'pleasure is the only thing we want' may not be accepted by many people in the end.
Thank you for the great video! Minor: I think it's controversial to say that utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory, since not all utilitarians have a hedonistic axiology. Some, for instance, believe in objective-list theories. Wouldn't it be maybe more accurate to say that they are welfarist?
I think what you are describing is a consequentialist, which doesn't assume a particular axiology. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, with a particular axiology.
Not having read Bentham, I do wonder if he had in mind a wider definition of pleasure than the narrow, and somewhat guilt-ridden, view of it we commonly have. The pleasures of, say, discovery or competing in a game of squash (best game ever) or creating an artwork are all pleasures that are cerebral rather than simple fun. If you take that view, it seems likely that you could stretch to cover much, if not all, of the ground that the experience machine does. Also arguably many people enter the experience machine freely but temporarily when they play video games, or even watch movies. If their lives were bad enough, re- entering the matrix might be a viable choice for many. Interacting with reality is perhaps only something we value if we feel reality values us. One thing not mentioned here though, and maybe later, is that sometimes suffering is perversely seen to have value especially when in pursuit of an end. Maybe these two factors are what really makes us hesitate about an alternative realty. Maybe there is an optimum level of suffering that we subconsciously need to be happy.
In my counterexample (having not read the book at all and going by the general argument) considers the degree of pleasure, not as pleasure points gained by one individual, but by the average pleasure points gained by a group of individuals engaging in that same act. How does that affect your counterexample?
Can you consider if one is more valuable for the pleasure it causes for others. Example: something for an individual’s pleasure vs. Doing something unpleasant for the pleasure of multiple people. Let’s say Bob doesn’t enjoy babysitting his friends’ kids, but when he does the kids enjoy it and his friends can go on a fun date. He would rather get wasted at his house. Doesn’t that make the babysitting superior to getting wasted alone? Also considering other effects like the outcomes. Let’s say Bob hates health foods and would rather just get wasted. Does that mean that the pleasure he gets from getting wasted is superior to eating quinoa?
If you start considering other then you are addressing Aggregation rather then Hedonism. Also remember that Hedonism is about the end results pleasure. So alcoholism may be pleasurable in the short term but the pain of poor health and ruined social life will soon outweigh it.
@@williamjenkins4913 consequentialism more so addresses outcome. If you don’t care about having a bad social life or health than thats not a deterrent from staying home and drinking as apposed to babysitting.
I think you missed an important point in your counterexample, that hedonism defines the value of things only for the individual who experiences their pleasure or pain. So if you experience more pleasure when doing something, that is more valuable for you, but the value of the same thing can be completely different for me as I can experience it differently.
The root of hedonism is fear, the drive for pleasure out of a fear of pain, it has nothing to do with morality. Man is only driven by two forces - love and fear, every action is derived from one or the other.
I think it's very hard to give a counterexample without us defining utility/value. Pleasure is subjective so for us to objectively compare two activities, then utility would have to be the only true basis of comparison hence we'd have to agree on what entails value. If it's not the pleasure/pain an activity gives to a subject that gives utility to an activity, then what else does?
i don't understand why eating ice cream is considered pain-free/neutral behavior. Even if it's vegan, it probably still involves some negative consequences (pain for others). If it's not, at least the cat is already dead
Bentham's statements, as you've provided, in no way describe what he means by pleasure, nor any means by which we can measure it. One cannot simply counter an argument without first understanding its bounds.
Between the many unnecessary examples used to specify basic concepts which don't need specifying, and the fact that we can just read Bentham (which I strongly recommend), this isn't particularly useful unless you're struggling with comprehending the base material. Feels very vocational college-level. I just spent 14 minutes watching something that I understood in under 5 seconds of reading, hoping for a unique insight or something.
Do people really have a problem agreeing that A#2 in your counterexample example is more worthwhile? To me it seems like I would always pick the option that produces more pleasure, all other factors being equal. Just the fact that some activity is taboo does not make it less worthwhile. I don't think this will be much of a utilitarian dilemma either, since it seems relatively easy to argue how a trend of people tickling unsanitary cat coprses for fun would spread enough disease to outweigh any fleeting pleasure gains. Great video but I really have trouble coming up with counterexample that stands up to serious scrutilny. Then again I'm allowing for pleasure to be measured in the long term aggregate, which might be too charitable and a completely impractical to measure in the real world.
But I like tickling cat corpses, and I am very clean with how I do it. Sure every single other person tickling those cute little critters spreads disease like crazy, but I'm not like them. Why would I be barred from doing something I like, just because other people don't know how to do it like I do?
@AhmedAlahlam Idk lifes all about pleasure, why live a long life if u can experience the essence of pure happiness and extesy through synthetic means. Every other experience can only sratch the surface of that. Living hedonism to the fullest extend seems like a sure fire way to live a fast life, great, but ultimately on dimensional and boring. Im not being fully serious with the hard drugs analogy
@AhmedAlahlam U missed my point. Boring as in conceptually boring. Such a life which prioritizes pleasure is "one-dimensional and boring" because living along the principle of maximising one emotion, pleasure, is fundumentally reductionary to the full experience of living.
@AhmedAlahlam pleasure is just a feeling. its short term by definition. Chasing pleasure as ur life philosophy leads to short term thinking. Most people strive for happiness. The path to happiness often involves pain and overcoming hardship but that only gives the pay-off at the end more meaning. Simplifying the equation for life down to minimise pain and maximise pleasure is tragic. Hedonism is coupled with mindless consumption and choosing the easy route in life. Its an empty existence full of self indulgence. If I were to embrace hedonism id quit college right now knowing that my parents would be able to provide a comfortable existnce for me. Its life without ambition. Just picture ur typical spoiled frat kid who goes through a midlife crisis and works at daddys company his entire life...
@AhmedAlahlam Hey man no need to start making assumptions lol. Pleasure in hedonism is just described as feeling good. It can be sensury pleasure, intellectual pleasure or pretty much any good feeling. Not much to understand... Its just a general place holder term for the broader concept of "good". My assertions about life being about more than just a spectrum of "good" and "bad" feelings is a common criticism levied against hedonism. Ur example of an unlimited pleasure machine is a common thought experiment by Robert Nozick's, the experience machine, used to provide counter points against hedonism. Clearly my points are just the result of differing perspectives which is to be expected in a philosophical discussion, not a lack of understanding as u somehow seem to want to assert. Idk why ur getting so defensive lol.
@AhmedAlahlam eh i think thats an oversimplification/ misreading of the experience machine. Its supposed to show that we humans also value things other than pleasure and that therefore a philosophy which only takes pleasure vs pain into account doesnt make sense. The experience machine is as u suggest the perfect life according to hedonism yet many / most people will probably not choose the machine due to ppeople wanting more than just pleasure. Therefore he comes to the conclusion the hedonism isnt right. Obvioously theres counter points to the thought experiment, but its not as simple as saying that one choice is "stup*id" lol
One should be very careful in using counterexamples not to fall into the gross fallacy of claiming that exceptions cancel the rule. Disease does not cancel health. Disease is judged from the point of view of health, not the opposite. One should not confuse the comprehension of a term with its extension. The statement that grand-mothers have this or that property is not cancelled by one example of a grand-mother who hasn't that property. Rather one should try to show that the generalization is false conceptually: the definition--and definitions are not "stereotypes", please--of grand-mothers does not entail the property W or Y. Bentham's argument cannot be refuted by counterexamples since pleasure is purely subjective and amoral. Every counterexample would be met by the objection that your refutation is based on "prejudice": WHO are you to tell Z that tickling a dead cat is "bad" or less valuable than eating ice cream? The only thing you could say is that MORE people like to eat ice cream than tickling dead cats-which is a form of necrophilia-THEREFORE cat tickling should not be encouraged as much as ice cream consumption. But who knows? necrophilia could become popular if some pop star started advertising it on cable TV? One way to refute Bentham's immoral doctrine is by Platonic peritrope: why should I believe utilitarianism in terms of its own supreme value, that of maximal pleasure? There is no reason at all! Truth has nothing to do with pleasure. But what baby Bentham is doing is trying to convince us of his own version of truth. That is obviously contradictory--to say nothing of the contradiction inherent in criticizing other people's pleasure in reading or reciting poetry! To conclude, I'd say that what Bentham is doing has nothing to do with philosophy. In fact, from a philosophical point of view, his "theory" cannot be refuted since ultimately pleasure is relative to each and every individual. Even being in contradiction with oneself could be considered as pleasurable. Therefore, let us not waste our valuable time with this nonsense. This is not a philosophy at all. Utilitarianism is just self-justification of one's vices and prejudices. A bad and idiotic--in the primitive sense of the word--apology. Read the true apology by Socrates instead.
So should societes kill people that are unhappy? Let's say only those with uncurable chronic sickness which pain cannot be overcome by actions that add happines, who have no family/friends that would miss them, and in a way that no one notices, by a serial killer that gets pleasure from killing them. And for just hedonism, should the unhappy person above, be morally obligated to commit suicide? Better forever 0 than -10.
Pleasure cannot control itself, only virtue, which involves reason and habituation, can: therefore pleasure cannot be the supreme value. Epicurianism is self-contradictory. Besides, we all know from experience that pleasure is relative to suffering. Therefore, by avoiding pain, epicureans are defeating their own purpose. Another blatant contradiction is the fact that pleasure, contrary to thinking, which is a cosmic unity, is dependent on individuality. Therefore no philosopher worth his salt can make sweeping generalizations about the hierarchy of sciences using pleasure as a yardstick. Pleasure is changeable and utterly fanciful from one individual to the other. From Antiquity, epicureans have been mindless fools with lots of money shielded from the turmoil of society in their luxurious villas.
It's ironic how you fetishize 'virtue', not realizing you're only projecting your preferences on to an idea. The reason why you do so is because of moral intuition, which is a culturally determined mix of biases. Hedonism, on the other hand, recognizes the intrinsic goodness of pleasure regardless of your worthless intuitions that change based on time and place in history.
Questions to Bentham : can I stop listening to your theories and just play push-pin since there is more pleasure in playing children's games than in listening to people who claim to know better than I how to live my life? In other words, what is the justification of philosophy if everything is to be judged by the fake criterion of pleasure? And are you using pleasure to formulate your theory justifying pleasure or are you using something else? And what are you talking about: some kind of truth or some kind of pleasure? If you are trying to demonstrate some kind of truth, I am afraid you are engaging in a self-contradictory activity! And if someone derives great pleasure from burning your books or even burning you, how are you going to stop him? And if someone derives pleasure from refuting your truths about pleasure by false counterarguments or what you call "prejudices", how are you going to stop him?
Near the end with the counterexamples: why should perverse pleasures *NOT* be as valuable as non-perverse pleasures? This sounds like "Prejudice apart..." ought to help me, but if we go even further perverse to necrophilia, then the perverse act becomes nearly impossible to defend. It's like the act of tickling a cat corpse is disgusting, weird, and perverse but still someone can reap pleasure from the act. In my super dark example: maybe someone can find pleasure in necrophilia despite the rotting human corpse. 🤢 I can't defend that action though. I think there's something qualitative going on that separates the experience of eating ice cream from necrophilia: no matter the pleasure someone could receive from either action. Does this make sense? Hannibal Lecter might find great pleasure in cannibalism, but it's a perverse act that can not & should not be more valuable than the act of eating ice cream. Some actions contain a fundamentally perverse or a painful quality even if "Prejudice apart...", and this ought to give them less value. It's like Hedonism missed out on the fact that some actions can be both painful & pleasurable. I never really considered it before, but maybe all perverse acts are this mixture of pleasure & pain. ----- It's really kind of funny. You specifically bring up necrophilia in a later lecture! 🤣
I am not a philosophy student but I really appreciate his work
If you regularly watch philosophy content from a knowledgeable source, it's reasonable to say that you would be a philosophy student! Colleges can't gatekeep your status as a student just as churches can't gatekeep your hypothetical status as a Christian
@@connorpeppermint8635 ❤thanks for that
Jeremy Bentham's, or professor Kaplan's?
Oh but you are. We all are. Whether we like it or not.
@@connorpeppermint8635im gonna quote you on this
The out-of-context intros are great!
This channel is criminally underrated.
Just found it, algorithm for the win.
Here's my attempt at producing a counter example: It questions the assumption that "pleasure points" remain constant for an activity. Reading used to be an effortful activity for me. It produces a lot of pain (from the effort of understanding and going back and forth to the dictionary to learn unfamiliar words) and little pleasure (of learning a new idea). But the more I read books, the easier it is to derive pleasure from it. I consult the dictionary less and less and generally become better at reading. Now I can derive pleasure with minimal effort from reading. At the beginning I prefered to pet my cat than read. Now, reading becomes one of the sources of my greatest pleasure but I had to choose reading over cat petting for a while.
Therefore, I argue that some activities have more potential pleasure that may be derived if you cultivate it (like poetry)
I think that's an interesting point. My question would be why did you keep reading even though it provided a seemingly negative utility after you noticed you were gaining little pleasure from a larger amount of effort than that which can be acquired elsewhere. Did you not continue down your path ( which seems very good and substantive to your growth since your grasp of english at this point seems much higher than the average learner and on par with some native speakers) for the promise or perceived reward of a better understanding and therefore use of this language? TYVM
@@InformedZoomer I think I continued because I believed reading will bring me more pleasure minus pain in the long run than, say, cat petting. Assuming I live long enough to realize it (fortunately I did!)
Is this conclusion not based on hedonism in that you made the decision which netted the most pleasure (even if in the long run?)
As a hedonist, I'm with Liam. Hedonism takes into account long-term pleasure; this is what separates it from "mainstream" hedonism in which we're doing drugs and destroying ourselves. Long term, the suffering of rehab and possible death outweighs the temporary pleasure. I do wish that Jeffrey covered that most sensible hedonists are just as concerned with the long term as with the short.
@@liamhtml979not sure how people don’t just intuitively get this
The idea that tickling the corpse of a cat removes it from existence is conceptually horrifying.
Love this entire channel though, it is such a service to the world to have all this information publicly available in a digestible format.
One of the most obvious counter examples to hedonism is that people don't like being lied to even if that lie is meant to comfort, to protect you from a painful truth.
A counter argument to Bentham's statement about the push pin game is that reading poetry gives you a lot more pleasure in the long run since it so enriches your eloquence, imagination and understanding of your feelings. All these qualities will lead you to a better, more pleasant life. A push pin game might develop some skills too, but it is structurally less intellectually stimulating than readjusting your sense of reality through plays on words. What I mean here is that hedonism should not be concerned only with how pleasant something feels in the presence of the stimulus, but also ask to what extent a certain feeling is bound to yield pleasure or pain in the future.
Just found these videos and can't get enough of them. Just wish I knew what the prescribed reading was so I could follow along better.
The readings are listed in the overall playlist description for his Introduction to Ethics course: ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIazts4sq6UQ2kpjsUxhHaBd
@@W77W Thanks!
I think the poetry vs. push-pin example Bentham himself gives in the quotation is actually a more plausible counter-example than the ice cream vs. dead cat counter-example. I don't think we generally think of eating ice cream as an intrinsically valuable activity; the whole point is to get pleasure from it, so if somebody gets more pleasure from doing something else that's equally harmless, it stands to reason he should do that instead. Whereas in Bentham's example, we do tend to think of artistic expression and appreciating art (especially art forms associated with elite culture like poetry) as intrinsically more valuable than childish pastimes like push-pin. It seems like one *ought* to learn to enjoy more sophisticated recreational activities like poetry even if push-pin is currently more enjoyable. I don't have the same intuition about eating ice cream; if someone doesn't like ice cream, I don't feel like they ought to prefer it to other activities they do enjoy
It’s practically impossible to produce a counter example to Bentham’s claim since Bentham, and the person trying to produce the counter example are working with different definitions of value.
Bentham believes that the only thing that gives something value is pleasure, and the person who is trying to produce the counterexample must think that something else, other than pleasure gives something value. In other words, they are working with different moral theories as to what produces value, it’s like someone saying, “murder is okay,” then someone giving a counter example of someone being murdered, and then saying, “That’s bad, so that is a counter example.” It doesn’t work since the person giving the counterexample believes in a different moral theory, and then assumes that that is the truth when giving the counterexample.
@@afsmapping6092 The point of coming up with a counter-example is not to change Bentham's mind. It's a way of arguing that Bentham's moral theory doesn't capture our moral intuitions, that it leads to severely counterintuitive moral judgments. Since "murder is okay" is an extremely counterintuitive moral judgment to begin with, a counter-example is indeed pointless in that case. But Bentham's theory is at least plausible on the surface: we all tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and many if not all the things we consider right and wrong are explicable in those terms. So a better analogy might be the claim "Murder is *always* wrong." That too is plausible at first glance, but a counter-example like "What about in a situation where murdering a child molester is the only way to save the lives of 10 innocent people?" shows that it leads to some counterintuitive moral judgments.
@@kennethconnally4356 In a situation where you want to show that Bentham’s moral theory is counterintuitive to the modern majority notion of morality, then I agree that a counter example would work. But my point was not to try and say that a counterexample cannot change Bentham’s mind, I was saying that: If an opponent of Bentham wanted to disprove his theory of morality, then he cannot just use counterexamples to say, “Your theory is incompatible, in some cases, with what the majority of people in modern society think is moral,” since that would be an appeal to majority fallacy, and in terms of moral theories, then that is the only way you can use counterexample in the first place: To show that a theory is incompatible with modern majority notions of morality, and so that’s why I said it’s practically impossible to produce I counterexample to Bentham’s claim; I admit, I may have phrased it a bit wrong, but allow me to rephrase it: It is practically impossible to produce a counterexample to Bentham’s claim that is anything beyond, “That is, sometimes, incompatible with modern majority notions of morality.”
@@afsmapping6092 Sorry if I misread your comment there. I agree that a counter-example doesn't exactly "disprove" an ethical theory; it's always possible for the theory-defender to say "sure, that judgment entailed by my theory isn't one you or even most people would make, but it is nonetheless the right judgment." But unless the theory can be shown to contradict itself, it's really the best a critic can do in terms of moral reasoning. When thinking about what's moral, we ultimately have to rely on our intuitions because there aren't any observable "facts" about what's right and wrong.
@@kennethconnally4356 I think the best criticism of an ethical theory, besides a counterexample, is simply asking, “Prove to me your theory is correct.” Because you are right: There are no observable, “facts”, about what is right, and wrong, and that puts the whole concept of morality into doubt. Concerning the human intuitions: Why should we listen to what our body wants us to do? Why is our body the arbiter of morality? But I agree with you. Besides asking, “Prove it,” proving a theory is self-contradictory is the best way to disprove it.
I have 2 questions.
1. Why does hedonism, and Bentham, value pleasure so much? What intrinsic value does it possess over pain?
2. What is value within an activity? Bentham makes sure to clarify within his argument that any difference between two activities that doesn't take into account their level of pleasure is irrelevant, so how can you measure their value?
Kaplan discusses that more in his earlier video on Utilitarianism, around the 5 minute mark:
ruclips.net/video/03ESwNlyG8k/видео.html
In short, it seems that of any thing (or certainly most things) you can ask "Why is this good?" and have a coherent answer in terms of something else; that is, it's good as a means towards an end. Money is good because it lets you buy stuff and (though his video doesn't include these examples) family are good because they bring you joy, charity is good because it helps people etc. But when asking that of pleasure, there doesn't seem to be any further answer: Pleasure is good because it feels good. We might say of those other things people value that family/love are good because they bring you pleasure, they make you feel good, and charity is good within many broader moral frameworks because it helps bring other people pleasure. By contrast pleasure isn't good because of (for example) certain neurotransmitters in your brain which are a consequence or corollary of pleasure-producing activities; we don't care about the neurotransmitters except inasmuch as they give us pleasure. They and everything else for which we can provide a further answer to the question "Why is this good?" seem by that fact to be means to an end, whereas pleasure is an end in itself.
I suppose the question is whether there might in fact be OTHER things we can consider good as ends in themselves, since I doubt many folk would deny that pleasure is indeed good as an end in itself. For example for those who subscribe to such notions, is obedience to God good because it makes God happy, or because it conforms to a moral theory, or because it fulfills humans' intended purpose, or because it gets us to heaven (or is a consequence of what gets us to heaven)... or is obedience to God good purely because it is obedience to God? Hard to think of any better potential other options for good-in-itself than that, and that seems pretty shaky even in terms of how it is likely perceived by many/most of its adherents (never mind whether it's actually a recognizable fact like the good of pleasure in itself).
Hey Jeff, I’m an ethics and religious studies major over at Guilford College. Really enjoying the series as a nice brush up on the basics as I move into my senior thesis studies!
Whaaat? These are basic?
@@nihadali9286 Yea my friend. These are the basics. Wait until you get away from normative thought and into subversive thought. Then things get real wacky.
@@kwloy OMG btw i am new to ethics give you guide me where to start and where would end up?
@@nihadali9286 Hmm... it really depends on where you want to go. As I've said, my major is really "Ethics & Religious Studies," so I mostly deal with subversive theologies. From my lens, the best place to start would probably be James Cone's "A Black Theology of Liberation." For a more secular perspective, you could dive into Foucault, or you could take a look at Kirkegaard's Existentialism which arrives at a more collectivist ethic as opposed to Nietzche's more individualistic existentialism.
@@kwloy thanks brother
My grandmother had red hair and gave out honey baked ham and iced tea. Southern grandmothers are the best.
To devise a comment on *_"Peter Singer ~ Ordinary People Are Evil"_* Mr. Kaplan has decided to force me to use the comment section that goes to one of his other videos. I will not hesitate to proceed: As to Singer's argument that postulates it is evil NOT to make charitable donations to starving children, wherever they exist in the world, using ALL of one's "extra" money that one would have in his possession at any conceivable moment in time ("extra" being any and all money one possesses that is NOT essential to bare-bones survival)...perhaps it would be better left to celestial beings who live in higher realities ~ higher planes of existence ~ to determine if this actually is an "act of evil."
*QUESTION:* is it then, let's just say, "morally wrong" *not* to donate ALL of one's "extra" money to charity?
*ANSWER:* Sounds like someone trying to lay a guilt trip on the entire population...let's not get carried away. In American, to be able to retire with a sufficiency of dignity, stability, and security ~ with adequate amounts of health care, recreation, mobility, organic foods, and all of the other essentials required to live out one's life in a state of physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and social wellness ~ to be able to retire with all of the bases covered adequately enough so one does not suffer ~ does not fall into depression, hopelessness, despair ~ and is able to maintain proper physical/ mental/ spiritual health and happiness to one's dying day is the goal, I would argue, that we ALL are struggling and striving to realize.
So what _would_ be an appropriate amount of *extra* money any American citizen should feel deserving of, justified to be in possession of, and to have saved up for one's retirement?... How much money should one be able to accumulate ~ to maintain throughout one's life ~ without any guilt ~ in order to avoid destruction, degeneration, death due to poverty and to insure one is able to maintain proper health and a sense of well being to the bitter end? WHAT THEN IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, AFTER ALL? I would say the approximate amount of extra money one should not feel guilty about holding in reserve for past / present / future essential expenses in 2023 would be $2,000,000... Therefore, anyone hoarding an amount of money that exceeds $2mil ~ who, then, is NOT donating ALL monies that exceed this allowable amount is, IMO, morally wrong.
"...From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded." _(Luke 12:48)_
It would be nice if you add links to the related paragraphs in the video description. Thank you a lot by the way
I thought your example suitably strange, but then I remembered that taxidermy exists and there are people who are all about it
Higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Eating ice cream=Lower Pleasure. Listening to this video=Higher Pleasure. Listening to this video while exercising on treadmill is even higher. Playing TV toe vs playing chess? The flip side is the avoidance of pain. Sometimes you have to endure pain for long term benefits. For example going to a dentist to get a tooth pulled could involve at least some pain. , but provide long term pleasure. Also physical therapy to rehabilitate an injury can involve a lot of pain. Hopefully the consequences will be positive. You might regain at least some of the use of what is being rehabilitated. There is also the paradox of the masochist who gets pleasure from pain . Even though it is a "lower order" pleasure. 🤔😏
@@dazednelectro People do have the authority to make such a declaration, you have the authority to disagree. Or you do not have the authority to say nobody has the authority. 😊😁🇬🇧
Pain /pleasure is subjective of course … pain is pleasure when you are aware of the final outcome being pleasure .. it’s simply the road to pleasure - masochist , sure … why is that a bad word
@@kellywillowmacneil5519 IF the person who is receiving the pain has "consented" to it, THEN it could be pleasurable. Then there is the degree of pain that the masochist has consented to
.
Sir ! I think JB is talking about nature of one person, I mean that he is thinking that what is valuable or cause of pleasure and what is non-valuable or cause of less pleasure or pain for one person not two different person. Example: A a person having more pleasure in listening Poetry than music for that person I mean for A poetry is more valuable than music. Your example is amazing but it's for two bodies ie X and Y.
In my mind counterexample will be as : something are not giving us pleasure but we need to do for other people for example a person is tired and he come to home his wife is ill it's not giving him pleasure but still it is valuable for him to serve her.
(I am student of Law not of Philosophy but want to study Philosophy after completion of Law degree... So in my example there will be must some mistakes but it's my try to answer it so I hope you will forgive my mistake Sir)
I agree with the first part.
But I think there generally is no way to give a counter example here. If say you find making and knocking over jenga towers gives you more momentary pleasure than poetry, but think poetry is more valuable, then that's because you are only considering momentary pleasure. You have to consider absolutely everything like the pleasure of the imagined prestige engaging in poetry gives you or the pleasure of imagining yourself creating such poetry one day give you.
My problem with hedonism is the sheer incalculable of all the relevant variables. I find that knowing about hedonism can make people do the things that provide them less total pleasure because of an over emphasis on momentary pleasure when ones innate sense of value is a natural hedonic calculation.
@@nourmasalkhi9004 exactly, as humans we understand delayed gratification, so in his attempted counter example, one could argue that serving your wife even whilst tired, will result in her treating you more favorably, therefore increasing your pleasure in the long run. People understand reality and base their desires off that, not just pure theory of what is pleasurable in the moment. For most people it’s unpleasant to work, but its far more pleasurable to eat and have shelter than to starve.
Jeremy::Your work is amazing¡¡¡Congrats¡¡
Consequentialism is a great discretion. -OKA
appreciate this prof.love this
Hedonism and Heathens have a very similar theme going on kinda.
I'd say Hedonism is actually going pretty well for Kim Jong Un.
bda counter examples.. i raise you mine:
A#1 - working out, joy of the activity: -10 (agony)
A#2 - gaming, joy of the activity: +10 (fun)
yet the value of A#1 is exponentially greater than the value of A#2
I think we should define 'what is valuable' first. If the answer is 'something is valuable if it produces pleasure', then we come to the conclusion that 'more pleasure means more value'.
However, taking the conclusion to the extreme, if pleasure is the only thing that we want, shouldn't we do drugs from birth until death and remain high throughout our lives? This seems true to hedonism, but I don't want to believe it. Therefore, the hypothesis that 'pleasure is the only thing we want' may not be accepted by many people in the end.
Personally, I think you should have introduced the concept of the 'utility monster' here. It would have been a better counter-example.
Thank you for the great video!
Minor: I think it's controversial to say that utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory, since not all utilitarians have a hedonistic axiology. Some, for instance, believe in objective-list theories. Wouldn't it be maybe more accurate to say that they are welfarist?
I think what you are describing is a consequentialist, which doesn't assume a particular axiology. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, with a particular axiology.
that's why there are smaller definitions like hedonistic utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism, and objective-list utilitarianism
This hurts so good...
Not having read Bentham, I do wonder if he had in mind a wider definition of pleasure than the narrow, and somewhat guilt-ridden, view of it we commonly have. The pleasures of, say, discovery or competing in a game of squash (best game ever) or creating an artwork are all pleasures that are cerebral rather than simple fun. If you take that view, it seems likely that you could stretch to cover much, if not all, of the ground that the experience machine does.
Also arguably many people enter the experience machine freely but temporarily when they play video games, or even watch movies. If their lives were bad enough, re- entering the matrix might be a viable choice for many. Interacting with reality is perhaps only something we value if we feel reality values us.
One thing not mentioned here though, and maybe later, is that sometimes suffering is perversely seen to have value especially when in pursuit of an end. Maybe these two factors are what really makes us hesitate about an alternative realty. Maybe there is an optimum level of suffering that we subconsciously need to be happy.
Excuse me sir, but basketball seems to put me in touch with the cosmos
In my counterexample (having not read the book at all and going by the general argument) considers the degree of pleasure, not as pleasure points gained by one individual, but by the average pleasure points gained by a group of individuals engaging in that same act. How does that affect your counterexample?
In this case pleasure cannot be accurately measured from a small sample size such as an individual, but as a social concept that operates on averages
Can you consider if one is more valuable for the pleasure it causes for others.
Example: something for an individual’s pleasure vs. Doing something unpleasant for the pleasure of multiple people. Let’s say Bob doesn’t enjoy babysitting his friends’ kids, but when he does the kids enjoy it and his friends can go on a fun date. He would rather get wasted at his house.
Doesn’t that make the babysitting superior to getting wasted alone?
Also considering other effects like the outcomes. Let’s say Bob hates health foods and would rather just get wasted. Does that mean that the pleasure he gets from getting wasted is superior to eating quinoa?
If you start considering other then you are addressing Aggregation rather then Hedonism. Also remember that Hedonism is about the end results pleasure. So alcoholism may be pleasurable in the short term but the pain of poor health and ruined social life will soon outweigh it.
@@williamjenkins4913 consequentialism more so addresses outcome. If you don’t care about having a bad social life or health than thats not a deterrent from staying home and drinking as apposed to babysitting.
What if the pain is pleasurable? I think @Paraselene_Tao said it best in the comments by saying, "some actions can be both painful & pleasurable."
I'm not a masochist but I'd imagine that the pleasure is greater than the pain in those cases
Good job good job longlive.
I did not read Bentham's version of Hedonism but I am curious how he defines "valuable"
Making a Film versus watching a Film.
Wouldn't "A2 being less valuable than A1" be ignoring the "Prejudice apart..." part?
I think you missed an important point in your counterexample, that hedonism defines the value of things only for the individual who experiences their pleasure or pain.
So if you experience more pleasure when doing something, that is more valuable for you, but the value of the same thing can be completely different for me as I can experience it differently.
The root of hedonism is fear, the drive for pleasure out of a fear of pain, it has nothing to do with morality. Man is only driven by two forces - love and fear, every action is derived from one or the other.
I think it's very hard to give a counterexample without us defining utility/value.
Pleasure is subjective so for us to objectively compare two activities, then utility would have to be the only true basis of comparison hence we'd have to agree on what entails value.
If it's not the pleasure/pain an activity gives to a subject that gives utility to an activity, then what else does?
Also, most examples I've read are ignoring lesson one where we talked of pleasure or pain as an end and not as a means.
i love bentham, "he goes on in the next paragraph explaining why poetry sucks" XD
Where is the reading list he refers to?
I love you.
5:45
Are they happy little trees?
I don't get the counter-example. Is Bentham saying that the value of an action based on pleasure is objective?
18:20
wait. what happens to the cat corpse.
He ate it :/
I'm just here to listen and learn not think. Short term vs long term.
you can't learn without thinking
@@coffeedude OK, then I'm just here to listen.
what if the pleasure brings distress to others ? can you have a precis generalizering , no in generel i don't think so
I’m not really convinced of the dead-cat-tickleing counterexample…
i don't understand why eating ice cream is considered pain-free/neutral behavior. Even if it's vegan, it probably still involves some negative consequences (pain for others). If it's not, at least the cat is already dead
Bentham's statements, as you've provided, in no way describe what he means by pleasure, nor any means by which we can measure it. One cannot simply counter an argument without first understanding its bounds.
Philosophy and metaphysics in a nutshell
I think I must treat every corpse you come across as sacred; I eat meat.
Between the many unnecessary examples used to specify basic concepts which don't need specifying, and the fact that we can just read Bentham (which I strongly recommend), this isn't particularly useful unless you're struggling with comprehending the base material. Feels very vocational college-level. I just spent 14 minutes watching something that I understood in under 5 seconds of reading, hoping for a unique insight or something.
well not all of us are as intelligent and bright as you are, how will you ever forgive us for wasting your precious philosophical research time
The concept of antifragility by Taleb is a modern refutation of hedonism.
Do people really have a problem agreeing that A#2 in your counterexample example is more worthwhile? To me it seems like I would always pick the option that produces more pleasure, all other factors being equal. Just the fact that some activity is taboo does not make it less worthwhile.
I don't think this will be much of a utilitarian dilemma either, since it seems relatively easy to argue how a trend of people tickling unsanitary cat coprses for fun would spread enough disease to outweigh any fleeting pleasure gains.
Great video but I really have trouble coming up with counterexample that stands up to serious scrutilny. Then again I'm allowing for pleasure to be measured in the long term aggregate, which might be too charitable and a completely impractical to measure in the real world.
But I like tickling cat corpses, and I am very clean with how I do it. Sure every single other person tickling those cute little critters spreads disease like crazy, but I'm not like them. Why would I be barred from doing something I like, just because other people don't know how to do it like I do?
A recommended reading list would be helpful. For instance, where do I find the "paragraph" you cite?
+1
Im not a crack addict! Im simply a hedonist embracing the ultimate pleasure activity...
@AhmedAlahlam Idk lifes all about pleasure, why live a long life if u can experience the essence of pure happiness and extesy through synthetic means. Every other experience can only sratch the surface of that. Living hedonism to the fullest extend seems like a sure fire way to live a fast life, great, but ultimately on dimensional and boring. Im not being fully serious with the hard drugs analogy
@AhmedAlahlam U missed my point. Boring as in conceptually boring. Such a life which prioritizes pleasure is "one-dimensional and boring" because living along the principle of maximising one emotion, pleasure, is fundumentally reductionary to the full experience of living.
@AhmedAlahlam pleasure is just a feeling. its short term by definition. Chasing pleasure as ur life philosophy leads to short term thinking. Most people strive for happiness. The path to happiness often involves pain and overcoming hardship but that only gives the pay-off at the end more meaning. Simplifying the equation for life down to minimise pain and maximise pleasure is tragic. Hedonism is coupled with mindless consumption and choosing the easy route in life. Its an empty existence full of self indulgence. If I were to embrace hedonism id quit college right now knowing that my parents would be able to provide a comfortable existnce for me. Its life without ambition. Just picture ur typical spoiled frat kid who goes through a midlife crisis and works at daddys company his entire life...
@AhmedAlahlam Hey man no need to start making assumptions lol. Pleasure in hedonism is just described as feeling good. It can be sensury pleasure, intellectual pleasure or pretty much any good feeling. Not much to understand... Its just a general place holder term for the broader concept of "good". My assertions about life being about more than just a spectrum of "good" and "bad" feelings is a common criticism levied against hedonism. Ur example of an unlimited pleasure machine is a common thought experiment by Robert Nozick's, the experience machine, used to provide counter points against hedonism. Clearly my points are just the result of differing perspectives which is to be expected in a philosophical discussion, not a lack of understanding as u somehow seem to want to assert. Idk why ur getting so defensive lol.
@AhmedAlahlam eh i think thats an oversimplification/ misreading of the experience machine. Its supposed to show that we humans also value things other than pleasure and that therefore a philosophy which only takes pleasure vs pain into account doesnt make sense. The experience machine is as u suggest the perfect life according to hedonism yet many / most people will probably not choose the machine due to ppeople wanting more than just pleasure. Therefore he comes to the conclusion the hedonism isnt right. Obvioously theres counter points to the thought experiment, but its not as simple as saying that one choice is "stup*id" lol
One should be very careful in using counterexamples not to fall into the gross fallacy of claiming that exceptions cancel the rule. Disease does not cancel health. Disease is judged from the point of view of health, not the opposite. One should not confuse the comprehension of a term with its extension. The statement that grand-mothers have this or that property is not cancelled by one example of a grand-mother who hasn't that property. Rather one should try to show that the generalization is false conceptually: the definition--and definitions are not "stereotypes", please--of grand-mothers does not entail the property W or Y. Bentham's argument cannot be refuted by counterexamples since pleasure is purely subjective and amoral. Every counterexample would be met by the objection that your refutation is based on "prejudice": WHO are you to tell Z that tickling a dead cat is "bad" or less valuable than eating ice cream? The only thing you could say is that MORE people like to eat ice cream than tickling dead cats-which is a form of necrophilia-THEREFORE cat tickling should not be encouraged as much as ice cream consumption. But who knows? necrophilia could become popular if some pop star started advertising it on cable TV? One way to refute Bentham's immoral doctrine is by Platonic peritrope: why should I believe utilitarianism in terms of its own supreme value, that of maximal pleasure? There is no reason at all! Truth has nothing to do with pleasure. But what baby Bentham is doing is trying to convince us of his own version of truth. That is obviously contradictory--to say nothing of the contradiction inherent in criticizing other people's pleasure in reading or reciting poetry! To conclude, I'd say that what Bentham is doing has nothing to do with philosophy. In fact, from a philosophical point of view, his "theory" cannot be refuted since ultimately pleasure is relative to each and every individual. Even being in contradiction with oneself could be considered as pleasurable. Therefore, let us not waste our valuable time with this nonsense. This is not a philosophy at all. Utilitarianism is just self-justification of one's vices and prejudices. A bad and idiotic--in the primitive sense of the word--apology. Read the true apology by Socrates instead.
fentanyl whar jokester!
So should societes kill people that are unhappy? Let's say only those with uncurable chronic sickness which pain cannot be overcome by actions that add happines, who have no family/friends that would miss them, and in a way that no one notices, by a serial killer that gets pleasure from killing them.
And for just hedonism, should the unhappy person above, be morally obligated to commit suicide? Better forever 0 than -10.
Pleasure cannot control itself, only virtue, which involves reason and habituation, can: therefore pleasure cannot be the supreme value. Epicurianism is self-contradictory. Besides, we all know from experience that pleasure is relative to suffering. Therefore, by avoiding pain, epicureans are defeating their own purpose. Another blatant contradiction is the fact that pleasure, contrary to thinking, which is a cosmic unity, is dependent on individuality. Therefore no philosopher worth his salt can make sweeping generalizations about the hierarchy of sciences using pleasure as a yardstick. Pleasure is changeable and utterly fanciful from one individual to the other. From Antiquity, epicureans have been mindless fools with lots of money shielded from the turmoil of society in their luxurious villas.
It's ironic how you fetishize 'virtue', not realizing you're only projecting your preferences on to an idea. The reason why you do so is because of moral intuition, which is a culturally determined mix of biases. Hedonism, on the other hand, recognizes the intrinsic goodness of pleasure regardless of your worthless intuitions that change based on time and place in history.
Questions to Bentham : can I stop listening to your theories and just play push-pin since there is more pleasure in playing children's games than in listening to people who claim to know better than I how to live my life? In other words, what is the justification of philosophy if everything is to be judged by the fake criterion of pleasure? And are you using pleasure to formulate your theory justifying pleasure or are you using something else? And what are you talking about: some kind of truth or some kind of pleasure? If you are trying to demonstrate some kind of truth, I am afraid you are engaging in a self-contradictory activity! And if someone derives great pleasure from burning your books or even burning you, how are you going to stop him? And if someone derives pleasure from refuting your truths about pleasure by false counterarguments or what you call "prejudices", how are you going to stop him?
aggregation 😔😔🫡🫡🫡🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
also of course philosophy produces pleasure, why else would you do it
Near the end with the counterexamples: why should perverse pleasures *NOT* be as valuable as non-perverse pleasures? This sounds like "Prejudice apart..." ought to help me, but if we go even further perverse to necrophilia, then the perverse act becomes nearly impossible to defend.
It's like the act of tickling a cat corpse is disgusting, weird, and perverse but still someone can reap pleasure from the act. In my super dark example: maybe someone can find pleasure in necrophilia despite the rotting human corpse. 🤢 I can't defend that action though.
I think there's something qualitative going on that separates the experience of eating ice cream from necrophilia: no matter the pleasure someone could receive from either action. Does this make sense?
Hannibal Lecter might find great pleasure in cannibalism, but it's a perverse act that can not & should not be more valuable than the act of eating ice cream.
Some actions contain a fundamentally perverse or a painful quality even if "Prejudice apart...", and this ought to give them less value.
It's like Hedonism missed out on the fact that some actions can be both painful & pleasurable. I never really considered it before, but maybe all perverse acts are this mixture of pleasure & pain.
-----
It's really kind of funny. You specifically bring up necrophilia in a later lecture! 🤣