The Hedon as the unit of pleasure

[2ndRateMind]

So, this is a matter that rises out of utilitarianism.

The idea is that an action, rule or preference is moral insofar as it promotes happiness, immoral insofar as it doesn't.

Bentham thought that, when determining what action is right in a given situation, we should 'consider the pleasures and pains resulting from it, in respect of their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (proximity), fecundity (the chance that a pleasure is followed by other ones, a pain by further pains), purity (the chance that pleasure is followed by pains and vice versa), and extent (the number of persons affected)'.*

Seems like a good basis for a theory to me. But my question is, at what point should our own hedons override other people's in our consideration, and at what point should other people's hedons override ours? Can some sacrifice, such as risking one's life for one's country, or giving your beloved partner your last rolo, ever be justified under such a system? Does utiltarianism offer such moral guidance to us?

Best wishes, 2RM

*The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy

[ElCodeMonkey]

Giving your last Rolo provides a hedon for your partner as well as for yourself whereas taking the last one gives a hedon to yourself but potentially an anti-hedon to your partner which then might provide further anti-hedons to yourself. I think, once everything is factored in, it does end up accounting for such things. What I might fear, however, is that self-sacrifice would always end up being the "better" option as far as moralistic behavior. If everyone did it, it would be great, but it doesn't take realism into account that not everyone will do it. Thus, while less "moral", it might be more personally advantageous to focus on self and giving the occasional Rolo than it would be to self-sacrifice. Then again, that might have more of a positive impact in the end than total self sacrifice since it is more likely to be mimicked. So the real problem is that it's just too hard to measure like determining where a rock will land rolling down a hill. 100% mathematically calculatable, but so complex we could never really do it.

[2ndRateMind]

Giving your last Rolo provides a hedon for your partner as well as for yourself whereas taking the last one gives a hedon to yourself but potentially an anti-hedon to your partner which then might provide further anti-hedons to yourself.

Yes, I think this is the fundamental point I was aiming at for this thread. Giving my last rolo to my hypothetical spouse provides a hedon for them (say) and maybe 10% of a hedon to me (say), because I take pleasure in their pleasure. So, this might suggest if we all loved each other, as Jesus recommended, and made such sacrifices for each other, we might actually increase the gross number of hedons available and consumed. Of course, I recognise that I might be giving up an entire hedon for only 10% of a hedon, so for me, selfishly speaking, that's not an attractive proposition. But then, reciprocated love is not a selfish way of being...

Best wishes, 2RM

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 3 by 2ndRateMind]

Yep, but you have to carry it forward (fecundity) like in your OP. Giving 1 full hedon to your partner will predispose your partner to give you more hedons in return. So even though you only get 1/10th of a hedon for the giving of the Rolo, you get more down the road. And I generally do believe this principle. But if you give your entire life, the return to you isn't so great even though you give plenty of hedons to others. I believe the fecundity is also not as great as only giving partially. If you give only some, you'll get a LOT more back than giving all, and others will copy. If you give all, you get very little back, and few are likely to copy. So you might say the Rolo-giver is more ethically "moral" than Mother Theresa!

[2ndRateMind]

Yep, but you have to carry it forward (fecundity) like in your OP. Giving 1 full hedon to your partner will predispose your partner to give you more hedons in return. So even though you only get 1/10th of a hedon for the giving of the Rolo, you get more down the road.

Yes, I think that's right.

But if you give your entire life, the return to you isn't so great even though you give plenty of hedons to others.

Indeed. That, I think, is why we refer to the 'supreme' sacrifice, that sacrifice where nothing in return is expected, or can be experienced.

I believe the fecundity is also not as great as only giving partially. If you give only some, you'll get a LOT more back than giving all, and others will copy. If you give all, you get very little back, and few are likely to copy. So you might say the Rolo-giver is more ethically "moral" than Mother Theresa!

So you think that we should be parsimonious in our willingness to sacrifice? The last rolo is OK, but the ultimate gesture inappropriate?

Best wishes, 2RM

[ElCodeMonkey]

So you think that we should be parsimonious in our willingness to sacrifice? The last rolo is OK, but the ultimate gesture inappropriate?

Not to limit it to Rolos, but to some degree, yes. The best good is a good that propagates. A "paying forward." I'm not sure Mother Theresa did much of that. She helped some people survive, but will those people go on to make life bigger and better for others? Probably not. They probably just survived. And how many people copied her? Not many. Now if I'm really happy and generous on a day to day life in a way that does not appear severely sacrificial, how many people will I influence to do likewise? Probably a lot more. So my tempered good is better than all-out sacrifice of self. Mother Theresa's good might very well already be gone while I may have influenced people throughout my life in ways that they are still out doing good and likewise propagating. I don't really mean to intend to say I'm better than Mother Theresa or anything, but just trying to analyze the concepts and whether or not we truly buy them based upon these examples.

[2ndRateMind]

The best good is a good that propagates. A "paying forward."

That's a good thought. Hang on to that. More tomorrow, maybe.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 6 by ElCodeMonkey]

So, the thing that worries me a little is the transactional nature of swapping of my now hedons to my spouse for my future hedons from my spouse. That doesn't seem to me to be love in action at all, just business as usual. Any commercial enterprise operates in that way from the same kind of swap with its customers. Can we legitimately divorce our own interests in favour of the interests of others, our own hedons from the hedons of others, under a utilitarian philosophy? If we can, what would be the motivation? If we can't, what space would 'loving one's neighbour', and presumably, disinterestedly maximising their hedons, enjoy under such a regime? I am not sure Christianity is entirely compatible with neo-liberal politics and capitalist economic ideology in this respect.

I'm trying to get to a place where we all impartially maximise each others hedons, rather than pursuing our own, because if we could, I think we would all benefit. If we all are looking out for the interests of 7 billion people, and 7 billion people are looking out for ours, then we might arrive at a better world for each of us.

Best wishes, 2RM.