Aristippus and Ethical Hedonism

Narrator: 00:45

Aristippus and Ethical Hedonism

Pure hedonism is an enemy of self- discipline, but we can still seek our own pleasure while taking responsibility for our long-term goals, according to Aristippus.

We can be ethical hedonists by making new definitions for both pain and pleasure.

You’ve set yourself a goal, and you know what you need to do to get there.

Then a temptation comes along (as it always does).

Junk food, lounging around in front of the TV, mindless social media use, smoking, drinking, and all the other alluring bad habits.

But what is it about these things, really, that draw us in? That’s simple: they feel good.

We seek them out and succumb to their call because it feels pleasurable to do so.

This is why any discussion about self-discipline needs to seriously consider the role of pleasure and what it means for our plans to be and do more.

In reading some of the self-control ideology above, you may have once or twice recoiled, thinking, “Well, this doesn’t sound like much fun.”

Narrator: 01:07

The trouble with the virtuous life is that it can seem so joyless and boring! Of course cake wins out over a healthy meal, and sleeping in wins out over going to the gym.

It just feels better.

And isn’t that what life is about? Feeling good? Isn’t a life that is all hard work and no enjoyment really no life at all? It turns out, this question has fueled plenty of metaphysical debate, primarily in the philosophical position called hedonism.

Often assumed to mean “seek pleasure above all else,” hedonism is actually a complex concept with many subtleties and modern variations.

It says that pleasure is the moral imperative of a human being, and the highest and in fact only universal good, while pain is an evil to be avoided.

Life’s goal is therefore to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Hedonism can describe the claim that it is our duty to seek pleasure, while more modern psychological thinkers claim that hedonism is merely descriptive, and what humans naturally do anyway.

This philosophical stance had its beginnings, as so many of them do, in ancient Greece in an early Socratic school called the Cyrenaics, headed by Aristippus in the fourth century.

Though Socrates recognized that happiness was one possible result of moral action, the Cyrenaics focused on the pleasure aspect alone, denying that virtue had any value.

Aristippus believed a good life was one where pleasure outweighed pain.

These were the philosophers who argued that intense pleasure in the immediate moment—especially physical pleasure— reigned supreme (now you know that the voice in your head was a Cyrenaic all along).

The goal was a life of luxury, sex, good food, wine, and all the rest.

Aristippus himself was said to frequently visit prostitutes and gossip about his exploits abounded.

The philosophy of Epicurus, called epicureanism, also held pleasure as a fundamental goal, but defined pleasure more moderately, i.e.

as something closer to peace and serenity.

Epicurus suggested a moderate, humble life where we strive to actually reduce our desires and enjoy the simpler things in life, like time with friends and quiet contemplation.

He emphasized that behaving selfishly only reduced overall pleasure in life.

As you can imagine, hedonism in general is decidedly un-Christian and was heavily condemned by Christian philosophers in the medieval period, who thought that the highest moral good was to serve God, not yourself.

Many believed in the necessity of suffering, in original sin, and in the ethics of hard work and service.

A handful of prominent Christian thinkers, however, toyed with the idea that hedonism was in fact compatible with Christianity, because it was God’s will that humans be happy.

Today, there are even contemporary evangelical Christians who think that ecstatic bliss and pleasure is the same thing as the joy of knowing and worshipping God.

Particularly in the seventeenth to nineteenth century, a new brand of hedonism, called libertinism, emerged in Europe, and adherents took pleasure in spurning societal norms and religion in favor of brazenly gratifying every physical need, especially the sexual ones.

They essentially embraced the idea of pleasure being dissipation, debauchery, and decadence.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, came a little later and emphasized that what counts is total pleasure (or utility) for everyone, so the correct action is anything that maximizes this for as many people as possible.

Contemporary hedonists (assembled in the Hedonist International organization—yes, they have their own organization) focus more on individual liberty and equality.

Whatever philosophical strain you have in mind when you hear the word “hedonism,” though, anyone can see the problems with positioning pleasure so centrally.

First, is pleasure really so easy to seek out and quantify? Sometimes it seems like happiness and bliss are only ever found indirectly, and seldom as a result of active striving.

More than that, focusing on simple sense pleasures and instant gratification is understandably associated with depravity, laziness, overindulgence, and lust.