The Instigator
Redbluegreen
Pro (for)
The Contender
RMTheSupreme
Con (against)

Hedonism is ethically consistent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Redbluegreen has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 937 times Debate No: 116185
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Redbluegreen

Pro

I have already done a similar argument, however it was unresolved and so i wish to repeat this argument and i hope it will be more successful. I will be arguing that hedonism is ethically consistent amd morally correct. I ask my opponent to take the position that hedonism is ethically inconsistent and morally incorrect. If my opponent has any qualms with this position i ask them to inform me. Thank you
RMTheSupreme

Con

I believe, like Hedonists, that pleasure is UNDENIABLY the better outcome than pain when both are viable to get. I agree with this basis of Hedonism and I got not issue with it at all.

What I'm going to do is explain that if you do not add another layer to your system, in other words if you stay 'Hedonist right-wing psychopath' or whatever you want to call a pure Hedonist, you end up contradicting the idea that pleasure is superior to pain in so many situations where it becomes far murkier what is pleasurable or not as gambles begin to enter the equation where you give up immediate pleasure for avoidance of future suffering and vice versa.

Since Pro has initial burden of proof, I'll let them try to prove that it is ethically consistent or even that Hedonism has any ethics at all. See, it's easy to say 'pleasure is better than pain' but there's countless scenarios where your many options to take include paths where pain and pleasure are being traded, such as being a good hardcore nerd to have a great, blissful career in the future or the delinquent because you could die tomorrow or don't really think it's even sure pleasure to have such a career and to get good grades.

There's almost no situation where Hedonism can even tell you which option is the better one purely because 'pleasure' is present indirectly in any path you take in the exchange or at the very least pain is reduced to some degree meaning everything starts to become a 'good' idea.
Debate Round No. 1
Redbluegreen

Pro

Unfortunately I do not have much time for this round and i apologize for that. I will not be talking about the ethics of hedonism but rather how i will be defining it. Feel free to contend this definition.

You state that hedonism is pleasure vs pain. I do not disagree with this assesment but i would like to broaden these concepts further to support my argument later on. Pleasure can be percieved in a variety of ways that are seemingly contridictory. For example, some people enjoy the sensation of pain and derive pleasure from it. Some people derive pleasure from the sense of danger. Pain can also be percieved in many different ways that seem contridictory in much the same ways. When talking about pleasure vs pain I find its more useful to generalize these terms into a discussion of benifit vs detriments. More specifically, percieved benefit vs percieved detriment. Hedonism views true pleasure as a result of obtaining a percieved benifit and true pain (or suffering if you will) is a result of encountering a percieved detriment. These benifits and detriments occur within an individuals reality and thus are dependent on their perception of their respective minds.

You argue that pain and pleasure are interchangeable to a point of incoherence when employing a purely hedonistic philosophy. I would argue that this may be the case in reality, independent of the perciever (as no one can predict whether thier actions will certifiably have the outcome one hopes they would), but not when it comes to the percieved reality. We can only act on information we have, if this information leads us to conclude one action to be the most pleasurable with the least amount of suffering then we will act on this information regardless of its actual veracity.

I belive this definition of hedonism resolves any inconsistencies you pointed out, please correct me if i am wrong. I will be discussing how this definition of hedonism is ethically consistent and correct in the next round. I, again, apologize for not being able to respond to all of your points and promise to do so in my next argument. Thank you
RMTheSupreme

Con

The debate is about whether or not Hedonism is ethically consistent. This debate is not about if Hedonism could inspire a code of ethics.

My case is tha tHedonism actually supports every single code of ethics except ones that involve suffering as the end-goal or pleasure as insignificant in their equations.

Hedonism does not explain how you can giv eup imjmmediate pleasure ofr future pleasue or how likely it has to be tha tthe future pleasure will come in order to gamble with current suffering for the sake of the future pleasure. Conversely, Hedonism fails to address how important immediate pleasure is as well as the avoidance of immediate pain and suffering especially when it's done in direct opposition of future pleasure.

Any scenario that involve procrastination, doing chores, working in a job you dislike to get the money to survive the day at the expense of pursuing the business you enjoy all leave Hedonism totally murky on the matter as it gives no consistent framework to go by in order to answer 'what should I do?'

To be more frank on the matter, Hedonism is also very strange in how it addresses the issue of 'pleasure' and 'pain'. For instance, Hedonism could potentially make BDSM immoral as subs tend to enjoy things that Hedonism say they never should (pain, humiliation, temporary enslavement etc). Aside from that, even if we extend the definition of pleasure to include masochism and submissiveness as indirect paths to pleasure, there comes much more confusion on the other side of the equation. What I am saying is, sadistic individuals (especially those that are as extreme as serial killers or severe bullies of any kind perhaps with a rape fetish) are completely at a loss in Hedonism in how to justify being 'ethically considerate' to others since this will reduce their pleasure and increase their suffering while not directly pleasing anyone else but merely avoiding their pain. So, Hedonism begins to become very ethically incosistent when it comes to abuse of all kinds where the abuse is done directly to please the abuser or even indirectly to please the abuser while also disciplining for other reasons.

Hedonism also is confusing in matters like the death penalty and prison in general. How do we go about punishing when punishing is morally wrong in Hedonism? It's almost as if in Hedonism everyone feeling pleasure at the sake of no one is the imaginary utopia but this just doesn't happen.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
Kid, I am not gonna react to you quoting my profile. Who even are you? I know I'm narcissistic and that's the very reason why it doesn't make me make dumb decisions. I constantly analyse if I'm being overconfident or if I'm being genuinely confident.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
RMTheSupreme wouldn't have a clue anyway what a philological debate is. So don't waste your energy on debating with RMTheSupreme the empty headed ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic, sociopath.

Because this is who you are even considering to rationalize with, RMTheSupreme Profile below.

I am a genius and a madman and proud of being both. I've been through more than you can imagine and think on levels no other human could comprehend.
Activities:Poker, debating, PvP non-fps gaming and from time to time trolling.
Beliefs:Trust nothing, trust no-one. Love yourself and use everyone to please your ego. Buddhism is the complete inverse of how one should go about life, even inner calm is dangerous and constant inner panic is a far better baseline emotional foundation on which to base one's motivation to live and way to go about life.
Music:Rap and EDM subgenres.
Quotes:"I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere, hiding away. Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his name. If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them."
- Philip Pullman

"Loneliness, Stefan. That's why you and I memorialise our dead. There's the briefest of moments before we kill where we literally hold their life in our hands, and then we rip it away, and we're left with nothing. So gathering other people's letters or writing their names on a wall. It's a reminder that in the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone."
- Niklaus Mikaelson

"I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave."
- Diogenes of Sinope (to Alexander the Great)

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
Hedonism. Well there's a word you don't see every day thank goodness. But what would or could the 1% that own all the wealth have to say.
I think I'll have Russian caviar with that lobster alacarte for lunch with a glass of that 1800 bottle of wine. That will do pig and move along little donkey.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Redbluegreen
Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. My opposition to this ruling does not change the law of the US as decided by the Supreme Court. All i can do, voice my opposition to the ruling.

What defines the case of abortion: The SC ruled that the rights of the current generations outweight the rights of the future born generations. Seeing that no one generation makes a nation, that a nation by definition includes all future born generations, the ruling of the SC in Roe vs. Wade my opposition to this ruling argues that the Court made an error in judgement.
Posted by Redbluegreen 3 years ago
Redbluegreen
So. Let me see if I understand. You consider abortion a crime but not in a literal sense, as it is not a literal crime, but you do not consider hanging people a crime in a literal sense, even though it is a literal crime. Again, i have no hat in this issue. I just want to understand your rhetoric here
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Redbluegreen

It ceased being a crime with Roe vs. Wade. Time to hang those criminal judges. Another crime made by the Court, in the 1880s the SC ruled that Corporations are People. In that lite now read the Preamble to the Constitution. We the People of the United States etc.
Posted by Redbluegreen 3 years ago
Redbluegreen
Mosc. I have no hat in this issue and so i dont wish to argue the ethical implications of abortion. However im pretty sure abortion is not a crime in america. Forgive me im wrong
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Hedonists favor the crime of abortion.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
judaism
Thanks! I also like Con's pic, just waiting for him to get his hands back on the Black Pearl, arr!
Posted by Redbluegreen 3 years ago
Redbluegreen
No judaism i am not. But i do like alot of his ideas. Especially about fear. But i feel he does not define an effective system of hedonism nor do i believe he was even a full hedonist. Regardless, thank you for the observation
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.