(November 21, 2017 at 10:41 am)Khemikal Wrote: Hedonism has it's issues, but I don't think that's one of them. Presumably, a diagnosis is the first step in reducing pain and suffering. Most of hedonism's issues arise in the conflict between your pleasure and another's suffering (or your own). The hedonists paradox more adequately describes the trouble with hedonism. Pleasure seeking may not actually be the best way to achieve pleasure. Hence the modification of hedonism with stoicism, ethical hedonism. Whereby one seeks to increase pleasure and reduce suffering..but acknowledges that abstaining from at least some pleasure or pleasure seeking (or even seeking and accepting the reverse..suffering) might more adequately achieve the end goal for one's self and for others around them. The gaping hole, as it were, in hedonism is incomplete and often counterproductive perceptions of how to best seek or achieve pleasure, and what responsibilities we may have to others in that pursuit.
Yeah, the doctor example wasn't really the best. I was trying to make the case that no ethical theory is impervious to criticism while not delving too deeply into any particular ethical theory. In order to remain concise, I rounded some corners there. I didn't want to go on and on about the problems with hedonism while trying to make my original point.
But I'm more than happy to do that here. Epicurean hedonism emphasises modest pleasures over indulgence and may represent a sort of "stoic hedonism" (a theory which with I am wholly unfamiliar but it sounds cool). I have serious doubts about hedonism but the whole pleasure=good/pain=bad things seems like a very good place to start with ethical inquiries.
