Hedonism: Should we seek pleasure alone?

What is Hedonism? 

Funny as it is, Epicurus was not an 'epicurean' He actually lived what we may call an ascetic life. 

Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure is an intrinsic good. In other words, in all our actions, we ought

Epicurus, the man himself

to seek pleasure, which can be defined as happiness in the absence of pain, which is similar to the definition of happiness provided by Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century.

The philosopher most associated with Hedonism is Epicurus (341-270 BC). He felt that people should live moderately but pleasurably. With certain pleasures however, come pain. For example, although a person may enjoy the effects of excessive drinking, he/she may feel ill as a consequence. The proper way to lead life, according to Epicurus was to seek pleasure but avoid the pain that came with certain pleasures. He thus divided pleasures into two types. Those that were 'dynamic' pleasures were accompanied by pain, such as drinking as it can lead to disease, and those which were not accompanied by pain were termed 'passive' pleasures, such as friendship. It is the latter which we ought to seek according to his ethical system.

Hedonism as a philosophical doctrine is subdivided into two forms: 'Psychological Hedonism' which states that all activities are directed toward the acquisition of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and 'Ethical Hedonism' goes further, suggesting that not only should people seek pleasure but that they ought to do so since pleasure alone is good.

Strengths of the theory

If we examine psychological hedonism, we see that it is a theory that attempts to provide a single explanation for every possible type of conscious or voluntary actions we engage in, and it also provides a simple explanation. Consider the question 'why do people behave in a certain ways?', to which the answer is 'they are seeking pleasure'. All actions are thus seen to have instrumental value; they are being used as a means to an end: pleasure. 

Ethical hedonism essentially examines two questions: 'What is the good life for people?' and 'How ought one to behave?' An ethical hedonist would answer that the good life consists of pleasure, and how one ought to act is the gaining of pleasure. It too provides an answer for questions that are more general and apply to a larger group of people, as if almost providing a guide on how to behave, which is convincing in the eyes of the followers of such a system.

Weaknesses of the theory 

Psychological Hedonism has been scrutinised scientifically. Psychologists agree that sometimes we are motivated by the search for pleasure, but not always. Take for example, the pleasure which some people may try to seek when acquiring great wealth. As time passes, they may see the acquisition of wealth as an end, rather than the pleasure it may come with. In psychological language, they become 'fixated' on collecting riches rather than the pleasure it may come with. This criticism, may however have a response. It could be argued the the actual collection of wealth brings pleasure, even if the pleasure is limited. At this point science alone cannot be used to evaluate the problem, as it is now a philosophical problem. Even so, it can be be criticised. When any theory cannot be refuted by facts, it loses its explanatory force. It becomes true 'by definition', but it no longer refers to the world in the way in which scientific theories do, as it cannot be verified or falsified by facts. 'Pleasure' is defined as what people 'desire', but to claim that all people are motivated by a desire of pleasure is no more than saying that all people are motivated by a desire for what they desire. It thus becomes trivial. 

Ethical Hedonism can be attacked on the grounds that some pleasures will always come with pain. To thus assert that the good life is a life of pleasure alone is incorrect. Epicurus attempted to find pleasures which did not have painful consequences and argued that it is these pleasures which lead to a good life. Even this approach is not without its problems, as friendship, which he defined as a 'passive' pleasure has pain, say for example if the friend died, the person would feel intense sadness. Even if it were argued that pleasure itself is never bad, but the painful consequences are in themselves bad, this does not hold because we cannot always separate the painful consequences of a course of action from the pleasurable ones, as taking a drug like cocaine, while it may be have effects on the body that one may seek pleasure from, it does have painful consequences.

Sources: Philosophy by Richard H. Popkin and Avrum Stroll.
               http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07187a.htm