NationStates Jolt Archive

I consider myself a hedonist "whatever causes pleasure is right." (i know it sounds like an 80's pop tiltle but bear with me) or utilitarian. I therefore consider it right to dispense with morality, or even refuse to belive it exists, if greater pleasure/utility it caused by doing so.

Abortion is clearly a contraversial issue on NS, but how can hedonism add a different perspective on the issue. The issue is a matter of confusion for me because it hinges upon whether I view that a foetus can concieve pleasure, and also on the potential pleasure/pain it could have experienced on its life time. Morally e.g. using the morality of my society, I cannot accept abortion. A foetus will be an independant human being, it cannot be a women's choice because it is not her body, not her life, it is the life of another human being, another citizen, no man may own another. This being said as a Hedonist while I may accept that morality is a convient way of controlling society it cannot be considered infaliable. A foetus before a certain stage will be unable to feel pain or pleasure, what may happen in the future is an irrelevence, the Mother on the other hand will. Also the use of embryo research will be justified, it will cause greater pleasure then pain.

Problem I face is when a foetus is judged to be beyond the concept of pleasure/pain or if the pleasure/pain of an unborn person (e.g. not techically a citizen) is of any relevence compared with that of citizens?

Just be glad you have a standard of ethics at all. I haven't been able to find one at all after Nietzsche gutted mine. Now I'm trying to find a way to refute him simply so I will have an opportunity to rebuild my ethical code.

Just be glad you have a standard of ethics at all. I haven't been able to find one at all after Nietzsche gutted mine. Now I'm trying to find a way to refute him simply so I will have an opportunity to rebuild my ethical code.

I don't really have that mch of a standard of Ethics. I've come to the conclusion human existance is meaningless, so as long as we're all here we might as well have a pleasant time of it.

Just be glad you have a standard of ethics at all. I haven't been able to find one at all after Nietzsche gutted mine. Now I'm trying to find a way to refute him simply so I will have an opportunity to rebuild my ethical code.
in my "vast" experience of life ive noticed that all philosophy and ethics has at its core an unprovable assumption or self-justification. so do what everyone else does and just choose one that makes sense to you and stick with it.

as to hedonism, something i know nothing about, i dont see where the unfeeling clump of cells that constitute early pregnancy comes into the more important issues of the pleasure/pain of people already in existance. as long as abortion is done very early or for extreme medical reasons, it works very well in a pleasure driven system. it is a boon to humanity that no unwanted children ever need be born.

in my "vast" experience of life ive noticed that all philosophy and ethics has at its core an unprovable assumption or self-justification. so do what everyone else does and just choose one that makes sense to you and stick with it.

as to hedonism, something i know nothing about, i dont see where the unfeeling clump of cells that constitute early pregnancy comes into the more important issues of the pleasure/pain of people already in existance. as long as abortion is done very early or for extreme medical reasons, it works very well in a pleasure driven system. it is a boon to humanity that no unwanted children ever need be born.

I suppose that would be a logiacl conclusion

<snip>

This sounds not unlike the Greek Epicurean school of philosophy that held pleasure to be the ultimate good :D

This sounds not unlike the Greek Epicurean school of philosophy that held pleasure to be the ultimate good :D

You have had your Weetabix this morning havent you!

You have had your Weetabix this morning havent you!

Actually, I don't eat Weetabix these days. It's just that I've studied these philosophers recently. Your original post brought that particular fact to mind.

Actually, I don't eat Weetabix these days.
You should its high in fibre. Sorry I'll stop being sarcastic...

in my "vast" experience of life ive noticed that all philosophy and ethics has at its core an unprovable assumption or self-justification. so do what everyone else does and just choose one that makes sense to you and stick with it.

Yes, well, I'm trying to figure out what Nietzsche's was so I can find a way to demolish his premises and justify my life, if not rebuild my moral code alltogether.

I. I've come to the conclusion human existance is meaningless, so as long as we're all here we might as well have a pleasant time of it.


So if we all meaningless i could kill 100000000000s of People and noone SHOULD care? Cuz perhaps i would find it ''pleasant''(I have no plan of doing such for the record)

And what if i wanted to have an abortion? And let say(to make my point) that the fetus is a human life, if is pleasant to kill it i can?

So if we all meaningless i could kill 100000000000s of People and noone SHOULD care? Cuz perhaps i would find it ''pleasant''(I have no plan of doing such for the record)

And what if i wanted to have an abortion? And let say(to make my point) that the fetus is a human life, if is pleasant to kill it i can?

well yes, but as a democratic governmnet the theory is you are accountable to the pleasure of the whole electorate. If you kill 1000000000000s of people the rest of society might gain pleasure in you no longer existing.

I consider myself a hedonist "whatever causes pleasure is right." (i know it sounds like an 80's pop tiltle but bear with me) or utilitarian. I therefore consider it right to dispense with morality, or even refuse to belive it exists, if greater pleasure/utility it caused by doing so.

Abortion is clearly a contraversial issue on NS, but how can hedonism add a different perspective on the issue. The issue is a matter of confusion for me because it hinges upon whether I view that a foetus can concieve pleasure, and also on the potential pleasure/pain it could have experienced on its life time. Morally e.g. using the morality of my society, I cannot accept abortion. A foetus will be an independant human being, it cannot be a women's choice because it is not her body, not her life, it is the life of another human being, another citizen, no man may own another. This being said as a Hedonist while I may accept that morality is a convient way of controlling society it cannot be considered infaliable. A foetus before a certain stage will be unable to feel pain or pleasure, what may happen in the future is an irrelevence, the Mother on the other hand will. Also the use of embryo research will be justified, it will cause greater pleasure then pain.

Problem I face is when a foetus is judged to be beyond the concept of pleasure/pain or if the pleasure/pain of an unborn person (e.g. not techically a citizen) is of any relevence compared with that of citizens?


Okay, so I guess what you are saying is that you are uncertain about later term pregnacies because even though there is a point that a fetous begins to react to pain, you don't know when it actually experiences pain on a more consious level. While I can't help you define when that might be, my question is where do you stand.

You have a woman who can gain more pleasure by aborting the foetus. You have a person who could potentially experience a lot more pain then the pleasure the woman would gain. But you don't know for sure. Is it better to knowingly force the woman to experience less pleasure, or better to not risk the pain of others?

Another point that goes beyond the abortion issue. As a hedonist, what do you think about the fact that the decisions people sometimes make go against what would give them the most pleasure? What if you could enact legislation that would force them to do what whould most likely cause them to experience more pleasure if it is against their will. That's assuming you can be certain of what would cause them more pleasure. Would you enact such legislation, or do you value free will above pleasure? And if you do value free will above pleasure does that make you a bad hedonist?

And if you do value free will above pleasure does that make you a bad hedonist?

Well obviously excerising free will is more pleasurable then being forced to do somthing against it. However if your free will cause more "net" pain to others then pleasure to you then a goverment has justification to intervene. I'm not sure how much this effects the abortion issue.

I happen to think hedonism is little better than the alternatives. For one, is it really better to be happy all the time than to know what it is like to be in pain? If you know what pain is like and have to endure things you don't like in order to get what you want, I think in the end, you're probably better off.

well yes, but as a democratic governmnet the theory is you are accountable to the pleasure of the whole electorate. If you kill 1000000000000s of people the rest of society might gain pleasure in you no longer existing.

But with that logic you should not be allowed to have a nice Car cuz other people would not take pleasure in that. Or noone can use Windows XP it bring me pleasure when people do not use XP.


SO with your view not everone can win cuz it bring me pleasure having an iPod but it does not bring some people pleasure that i have a better iPod.

Were do that leave us?

AND if you say make all people equal then perhaps that is not pleasure to some becuz they like being better then other.