Critique of Hedonism: Lecture and Discussion

Hedonism is the philosophy that happiness is the aim of living. Below are some criticisms of hedonism as a world view. Although taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I find that these criticism are philisophically valid across the board, regardless of religious belief.

The fundamental errors of Hedonism:

(1) It rests on a false psychological analysis: tendency, appetite, end, and good are fixed in nature antecedent to pleasurable feeling. Pleasure depends on the obtaining of some good which is prior to, and causative of, the pleasure resulting from its acquisition. The happiness or pleasure attending good conduct is a consequence, not a constituent, of the moral quality of the action.

(2) It falsely supposes that pleasure is the only motive of action. This view it supports by the fallacy that the pleasurable and the desirable are interchangeable terms.

(3) Even if it were granted that pleasure and pain constitute the standard of right and wrong, this standard would be utterly impracticable. Pleasures are not commensurable with one another, nor with pains; besides no human mind can calculate the quantity of pleasure and pain that will result from a given action. This task is impossible even when only the pleasure of the agent is to be taken into account. When the pleasure and pain of "all concerned" are to be measured the proposal becomes nothing short of an absurdity.

(4) Egoistic Hedonism reduces all benevolence, self-sacrifice, and love of the right to mere selfishness. It is impossible for altruistic Hedonism to evade the same consummation except at the cost of consistency.

(5) No general code of morality could be established on the basis of pleasure. Pleasure is essentially subjective feeling, and only the individual is the competent judge of how much pleasure or pain a course of action affords him. What is more pleasurable for one may be less so for another. Hence, on hedonistic grounds, it is evident that there could be no permanently and universally valid dividing line between right and wrong.

(6) Hedonism has no ground for moral obligation, no sanction for duty. If I must pursue my own happiness, and if conduct which leads to happiness is good, the worst reproach that can be addressed to me, however base my conduct may be, is that I have made an imprudent choice.

I think that #1 and #2 are the most damning...something may be pleasurable short term, but ultimately lead to long term consequences for yourself or others. #3, #4, and #5 speak more of the practicality of employing hedonism as a guide for action. I might say that even if altruism is ultimately selfish (since it gives us pleasure and pleasure can be a motivator), such pleasure in itself is not the ultimate mean or end of the action, in accords with #1. #6 applies to the principle of virtue, which selfish individuals may not possess. Many hedonists simply don't care about others apart from that they give them pleasure.

I now open the floor for comments.