Two questions about hedonism

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, people have all kinds of motivations, and even more kinds of people. You only have to look at history to see how priorities shift—what people were willing to die for a century ago doesn't carry much weight today, and vice versa. At the end of the day, seeking satisfaction is a universal driver, but it's entirely relative. Just stating that humans generally chase gratification isn't some deep ethical revelation; it's just a fact of life.

I maintain that we subconsciously seek gratification, making it an indirect motivator.
Back at university, I actually learned from sociology professors (!) — a field of social deductive pseudoscience that misleads more than it clarifies — that human motives, goals, and values are inherently driven and shaped by a form of self-interest. Usually, it isn't even conscious. At the time, I viewed sociology through a quasi-religious lens, so I was surprised when the discipline shifted toward accepting evolutionary psychology and reductionist frameworks.

I’m curious what you would even say to them then?

Of course, they eventually ruined that too with concepts like "altruistic suicide" and other outdated nonsense that I knew was just a bunch of bullshit from the start. That was ages ago... maybe things have changed since then.

ruggedraven36 said:You got any other goals worth chasing besides just pure pleasure?

Euthanasia.

steeleagle77 said:Who fuckin' cares? It was stated that one only experiences "the final sensation of pleasure and nothing else."
If you don't feel the limitation, who cares if it exists?

Now, the scenario doesn't specify if you're stuck in that pod (lol) forever or just for a stint before walking back out to face the consequences. If it's temporary, I see the point. If it's for life... then I don't.
Nozick could have easily used "drugs" instead of a "machine" for his example.

People are already drowning in cognitive biases, believing whatever suits them. There's no fixing that today. Any optimistic view of "humanity" or "progress" seems incredibly naive to me. Everything will eventually burn out anyway...

There are people out there who actually care. We don't just want to plug into something to hit a dopamine peak; we want to earn that feeling through real-world experience, in a world that isn't just a collection of one-hit wonders. If everyone just hooked themselves up to a machine, we'd all just be living some scripted life of illusion. No thanks. Besides, someone would still be outside the machine, programming everything, pulling the strings... exerting total control over what those people inside are experiencing. It’s all an illusion. And while they’re busy chasing that artificial hedonism, everyone else will be left dealing with the reality of sickness, hunger, war, and all that...

ruggedbadger2 said:Sure, there’s always that risk of someone showing up obsessed with protecting "precious bodily fluids." 😁

For what it's worth, I don't agree with Jeffrey Ramos4 either. Back in high school, I remember hearing about this study where they put a male butterfly in front of one real female and one paper cutout of a female that was twice the size. Naturally, the butterfly went straight for the fake one. I guess it's a similar deal with people. I think the boost you get from pleasure and positive emotions actually improves survival chances, so those things are just universally desirable to humans. I don't buy the idea that hedonism isn't part of our nature or that people aren't fundamentally driven to seek out satisfaction...

Well, obviously pleasure helps survival and people naturally gravitate toward satisfaction rather than pain, but that doesn't mean anyone is willing to ditch struggle and pain entirely.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, there are plenty of different goals. Half the time we don't even know if they’ll actually make us feel good—if we even bother to think about it. Satisfaction is usually just a side effect—it's rarely the main event itself.

👍

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:There are people out there who actually care. We don't just want to plug into something to hit a dopamine peak; we want to earn that feeling through real-world experience, in a world that isn't just a collection of one-hit wonders. If everyone just hooked themselves up to a machine, we'd all just be living some scripted life of illusion. No thanks. Besides, someone would still be outside the machine, programming everything, pulling the strings... exerting total control over what those people inside are experiencing. It’s all an illusion. And while they’re busy chasing that artificial hedonism, everyone else will be left dealing with the reality of sickness, hunger, war, and all that...

Well, obviously pleasure helps survival and people naturally gravitate toward satisfaction rather than pain, but that doesn't mean anyone is willing to ditch struggle and pain entirely.

👍

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own delusions 🤣 but I couldn't help noticing your post implies people are rational actors who weigh every decision through scientific scrutiny.
Look, even we professionals—psychologists and psychiatrists alike—are riddled with cognitive biases. No one is immune. Rationality is the exception, not the rule. Humans act on instinct, emotion, and affect... rationality is just a footnote.
Why? Simply put, evolution favors cognitive biases because they serve the interests of selfish genes. These biases persist as long as the benefit outweighs the cost. For instance, believing you are superior to others is actually quite useful; it drives you to climb the social ladder, which ultimately benefits your genetic legacy...

steeleagle77 said:I maintain that we subconsciously seek gratification, making it an indirect motivator.
Back at university, I actually learned from sociology professors (!) — a field of social deductive pseudoscience that misleads more than it clarifies — that human motives, goals, and values are inherently driven and shaped by a form of self-interest. Usually, it isn't even conscious. At the time, I viewed sociology through a quasi-religious lens, so I was surprised when the discipline shifted toward accepting evolutionary psychology and reductionist frameworks.

I’m curious what you would even say to them then?

Of course, they eventually ruined that too with concepts like "altruistic suicide" and other outdated nonsense that I knew was just a bunch of bullshit from the start. That was ages ago... maybe things have changed since then.

I'd tell them that biology has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. First off, I’d suggest they learn the difference between autonomy and heteronomy of the will. Ethics isn't about dissecting human nature; it’s about determining what is good. Besides, what sets humans apart from animals is that we aren't forced to be slaves to our nature—whatever that may be. We don't have to be prisoners to our instincts because we can actually think, allowing us to make free choices that fly in the face of any subconscious motivation.

The islands... just sitting there out in the Pacific, waiting for someone to actually notice them. ruggedraven36 says:
Look, fair enough. Everyone’s entitled to their own delusions... 🤣

Exactly. And honestly, nobody has the right to tell someone else they’re wrong. At the end of the day, none of us can claim to know anything for certain...

The island life... there’s just something about it. It’s that specific kind of isolation that makes you feel like you can finally hear yourself think. No constant hum of traffic, no endless notifications—just the coast and the quiet. It’s easy to get lost in that rhythm... ruggedraven36 says:
It just struck me how much your post leans into this idea that people are purely rational actors... like we all sit around weighing every single variable and consulting scientific experts before making even the simplest decision...

I have no idea where you got the impression I felt that way. Honestly, if only people were actually rational...

The Paklarišće islands... just an endless stretch of jagged rock and salt air. It’s the kind of place where you realize how small everything else really is. ruggedraven36 says:
Why does this happen? It’s pretty simple... evolutionary selection favors cognitive biases because they provide a specific kind of payoff for selfish genes. That bias sticks around as long as the benefits outweigh the costs. Take it this way: it actually serves you to believe you’re unique or superior to everyone else. Why? Because that mindset pushes you to climb higher on the social ladder, which ultimately benefits "your" genes...

I'm on board with your take regarding cognitive bias and those selfish genes, but I wouldn't go quite so far as to claim I’m somehow special. Nobody is... truly. And if I actually had a choice in the matter, I certainly wouldn't want my own genes staying in the pool. It would be bad for evolution... 🤣

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Hedonism just isn't part of the human blueprint. No actual human being is wired to chase some ultimate, static state of pure pleasure. You see this reflected in psychoanalysis too. It’s similar to that old debate about whether you’d rather have the destination or the journey itself. Hedonism doesn't offer any real progress for humanity. I don't see any way to leverage it to build a community or true social cohesion. To me, hedonism feels incredibly selfish—it sits right at the bottom tier of human needs. Through his experiment, Nozick proved that people aren't just looking for a hit of dopamine; they want to actually live through the process. If we were all plugged into a machine that pumped out nothing but bliss, we’d get the sensation of satisfaction without anything else. And because we wouldn't be aware of what reality actually looks like, we'd be trapped in a bubble... which is the last thing any of us really wants.
Thanks, but I'll pass on the machine. 🙂

I find myself agreeing with your assessment. Pleasure isn't an end in itself; the most profound satisfaction often comes from victory. And in order to win, one must engage in conflict. I am not speaking of literal warfare, of course, but rather the metaphorical struggles we face—the battle for knowledge, the grit required to solve a complex problem, or the discipline needed to build something meaningful.

The essence lies in the fact that through such struggles, a person transforms both their environment and their own character. Pure hedonism facilitates no change; it merely preserves the status quo for both the world and the individual. Yet, the fundamental law of our existence is that everything is in constant flux.

That said, there are clearly two types of people: the active and the passive. Those on the passive side would likely disagree with my perspective; they seem most content when they can bypass effort and hardship entirely. For them, simply being fed, clothed, and catered to is enough.

Personally, I think I would die of boredom.

steeleagle77 said:Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own delusions 🤣 but I couldn't help noticing your post implies people are rational actors who weigh every decision through scientific scrutiny.
Look, even we professionals—psychologists and psychiatrists alike—are riddled with cognitive biases. No one is immune. Rationality is the exception, not the rule. Humans act on instinct, emotion, and affect... rationality is just a footnote.
Why? Simply put, evolution favors cognitive biases because they serve the interests of selfish genes. These biases persist as long as the benefit outweighs the cost. For instance, believing you are superior to others is actually quite useful; it drives you to climb the social ladder, which ultimately benefits your genetic legacy...

I'm with you there. But I think that’s exactly where our responsibility lies. Our job is to learn how to master ourselves—to gain control over our physical responses, our emotions, and our thought patterns.

It’s about figuring out who we really are, what makes us tick, and why we behave the way we do, so we can eventually take the reins of our own actions.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, there are plenty of different goals. Half the time we don't even know if they’ll actually make us feel good—if we even bother to think about it. Satisfaction is usually just a side effect—it's rarely the main event itself.

Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

ruggedbadger2 said:Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

Killing one's own child.

Picture this: you have a five-year-old who is suffering from an incurable disease, enduring agonizing pain.

To end that suffering, you take their life.

If I were ever forced into such a position, the rest of my life would be defined by profound misery, stemming from at least two distinct sources: the loss of my child, and the weight of having been the one to end their life.

That would fall under category B, which is essentially eliminating dissatisfaction. People tend to be happy when their kids are happy, but this is one of those scenarios where both choices—killing the child or letting them live—are pretty much equally horrific for a parent. I guess you could say a parent who chooses to kill is basically deciding to end their child's suffering.

ruggedbadger2 said:That would fall under category B, which is essentially eliminating dissatisfaction. People tend to be happy when their kids are happy, but this is one of those scenarios where both choices—killing the child or letting them live—are pretty much equally horrific for a parent. I guess you could say a parent who chooses to kill is basically deciding to end their child's suffering.

Precisely. However, doing so only serves to amplify their own agony. While the child's suffering might cease, the parent is left to endure an immense, lifelong burden of grief.

The child is going to suffer regardless, even if they stay alive. No matter how you look at it, there isn’t a way to spin this into something beneficial for them. It really just comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. I guess that depends entirely on how much a parent prioritizes their kid's safety and what that means to them personally. It's an individual thing. Obviously, not everyone in that situation is going to kill their child.

Either way, every single option leads to some kind of end to the suffering. Unless someone is an extreme sadist, nobody is going to start targeting that kid just to make things worse—and even then, a sadist would only do it for their own twisted pleasure.

ruggedbadger2 said:Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

The problem is, nobody has a crystal ball to know if a goal will actually make them happy. It’s easy to assume that living an honest life or chasing some noble cause will keep us from feeling like failures, but that doesn't mean life becomes a constant slice of chocolate cake. Most people don't just wake up and decide everything based solely on what feels good in the moment.

That’s true, but that’s not really the point. We can’t predict where any given goal will actually lead us, but I guess we aren't exactly setting targets that are designed to end in misery—unless, of course, there's some sort of payoff involved. If Jesus had said, "Follow me and you'll burn in hell," he obviously wouldn't have had any followers.

ruggedbadger2 said:The child is going to suffer regardless, even if they stay alive. No matter how you look at it, there isn’t a way to spin this into something beneficial for them. It really just comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. I guess that depends entirely on how much a parent prioritizes their kid's safety and what that means to them personally. It's an individual thing. Obviously, not everyone in that situation is going to kill their child.

Either way, every single option leads to some kind of end to the suffering. Unless someone is an extreme sadist, nobody is going to start targeting that kid just to make things worse—and even then, a sadist would only do it for their own twisted pleasure.

The pain will still be there, but it might be more manageable. As long as the child is alive, there is at least the possibility of recovery, which offers a reprieve from the suffering for both parent and child. Hope is a powerful motivator and a massive source of comfort.

However, once death occurs, all hope vanishes along with it, leaving nothing behind but pure grief and the agony of losing a child.

ruggedbadger2 said:That’s true, but that’s not really the point. We can’t predict where any given goal will actually lead us, but I guess we aren't exactly setting targets that are designed to end in misery—unless, of course, there's some sort of payoff involved. If Jesus had said, "Follow me and you'll burn in hell," he obviously wouldn't have had any followers.

Sure, pleasure is subjective. Personally? I’d never sign up for permanent bliss if the fine print required me to lose my mind or inflict suffering on someone else. Life isn't just about chasing abstractions like "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction."

@Sam Martinez9

People can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—like the hope of seeing them again in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope, people in those situations usually just lose their minds or end up taking their own lives. And honestly, someone who kills a child isn't looking for the worst outcome for themselves either. If they were, there’d be no reason for them to go on beating or torturing the kid afterward; nobody wins from that, and the whole thing is just unthinkable.

I guess pleasure, or even just the absence of pain, doesn't necessarily have to be directed at the person themselves. It could be focused on someone they love more than their own life—in this case, that child.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, pleasure is subjective. Personally? I’d never sign up for permanent bliss if the fine print required me to lose my mind or inflict suffering on someone else. Life isn't just about chasing abstractions like "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction."

I wouldn't either, though I guess losing your sanity or hurting people would just be considered a form of dissatisfaction in my book.

Quote:>

ruggedbadger2 says: @Sam Martinez9 One can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—perhaps the hope of a reunion in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope in such a dark situation, people often lose their grip on reality or end up taking their own lives. >

That’s a consolation, not really hope.

It is rare for a parent to kill their own child, but we much more frequently see cases where parents lose a child to a car accident or an illness. Even then, it's rare for those individuals to seek an exit through suicide.

I have a friend who lost her son about three years ago, and she tells me the pain feels just as sharp as it did on day one. She doesn't find any real solace in anything. However, she has a daughter who needs her, and so she keeps going, enduring the grief of her lost son just to be there for her.