![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I don't know if Valentines Day is the time for moral philosophy but I just had an interesting discussion that led down this path...
Suppose doing what's Right means doing what Mom says, considering other people's feelings and ignoring my own, and always obeying the rules, etc. If this is the case, it sounds as though doing what's Right won't be very satisfying unless I'm so altruistic that I'm thrilled when I make others happy. The person I was talking with believed that they had to choose doing what's Right and doing what feels good at the moment. As they saw it, doing what was Right meant being Good but being unsatisfied, while doing what felt good at the moment meant being satisfied. Not surprisingly, what felt good at the moment often won even though this produced considerable misery for them and for others.
Some would say that this person is being hedonistic in doing what feels good at the moment without considering the consequences. Hedonism gets a lot of bad press but, if I remember right, pursuing short-term pleasure without regard for the consequences was not what the Hedonists advocated. My recollection is that the Hedonists (an ancient school of Greek philosophy) argued that if you choose the course of action that maximizes satisfaction/enjoyment/pleasure, you'll end up choosing the moral course of action. That what is Right ends up being what is most satisfying when you consider both short-term and long-term consequences.
I'm not sure if this principle applies to all situations, but there are a lot of scenarios where it works. For example, if I get drunk at a party does that maximize enjoyment? Not if we consider how I'll feel when I wake up with a hangover tomorrow or when I'm faced with the consequences of what I did while drunk. The Hedonists would argue that I'll maximize satisfaction/enjoyment if I drink enough to have a good time but not enough to have a hangover or to do things I'll regret tomorrow. They'd argue that this means that this means that alcohol abuse is Wrong and that responsible use is Right. However, notice that I'm not sacrificing my own enjoyment if I drink responsibly, I'm maximizing my enjoyment and simultaneously doing what is Right. Also notice that if I find that drinking always produces more net misery than enjoyment, then the Hedonists would advocate abstinence.
Does this mean I should just consider how I'll feel and ignore the impact my acts will have on others? If I do things that I enjoy at the moment but which make my wife and kids miserable, will that improve the quality of my life? That won't work out any better than if I ignore my own wants and needs and cater to them. The Hedonists would argue that in order to maximize my quality of life I need to find a course of action that satisfies my own needs and wants but which also considers the needs and wants of those I impact and which considers the long-term as well as short-term consequences. They figure that, if I do this, I'll end up living a life that I find satisfying, a life that is beneficial to those around me, and that turns out to be Right. It's an interesting idea.
Anyway, enough philosophy for now
Suppose doing what's Right means doing what Mom says, considering other people's feelings and ignoring my own, and always obeying the rules, etc. If this is the case, it sounds as though doing what's Right won't be very satisfying unless I'm so altruistic that I'm thrilled when I make others happy. The person I was talking with believed that they had to choose doing what's Right and doing what feels good at the moment. As they saw it, doing what was Right meant being Good but being unsatisfied, while doing what felt good at the moment meant being satisfied. Not surprisingly, what felt good at the moment often won even though this produced considerable misery for them and for others.
Some would say that this person is being hedonistic in doing what feels good at the moment without considering the consequences. Hedonism gets a lot of bad press but, if I remember right, pursuing short-term pleasure without regard for the consequences was not what the Hedonists advocated. My recollection is that the Hedonists (an ancient school of Greek philosophy) argued that if you choose the course of action that maximizes satisfaction/enjoyment/pleasure, you'll end up choosing the moral course of action. That what is Right ends up being what is most satisfying when you consider both short-term and long-term consequences.
I'm not sure if this principle applies to all situations, but there are a lot of scenarios where it works. For example, if I get drunk at a party does that maximize enjoyment? Not if we consider how I'll feel when I wake up with a hangover tomorrow or when I'm faced with the consequences of what I did while drunk. The Hedonists would argue that I'll maximize satisfaction/enjoyment if I drink enough to have a good time but not enough to have a hangover or to do things I'll regret tomorrow. They'd argue that this means that this means that alcohol abuse is Wrong and that responsible use is Right. However, notice that I'm not sacrificing my own enjoyment if I drink responsibly, I'm maximizing my enjoyment and simultaneously doing what is Right. Also notice that if I find that drinking always produces more net misery than enjoyment, then the Hedonists would advocate abstinence.
Does this mean I should just consider how I'll feel and ignore the impact my acts will have on others? If I do things that I enjoy at the moment but which make my wife and kids miserable, will that improve the quality of my life? That won't work out any better than if I ignore my own wants and needs and cater to them. The Hedonists would argue that in order to maximize my quality of life I need to find a course of action that satisfies my own needs and wants but which also considers the needs and wants of those I impact and which considers the long-term as well as short-term consequences. They figure that, if I do this, I'll end up living a life that I find satisfying, a life that is beneficial to those around me, and that turns out to be Right. It's an interesting idea.
Anyway, enough philosophy for now
