Hedonism and Objectivism

[Nate Smith 0]

I was recently discussing standards of value with someone not familiar with Objectivism. After laying out Ayn Rand’s argument for how and why life is the standard of value, he was not pleased at first. His response was essentially, “What about happiness? Happiness and pleasure are what motivate us and drive our choices and actions. An ethics that doesn’t account for happiness seems empty.”

I explained how our emotional responses are reactions resulting from our chosen values, and that Rand wasn’t overlooking happiness. Since it is the result of choosing and achieving values that are good for the life of the individual, happiness and morality are inextricably linked. He was much more pleased with this account.

But his concern was a reminder that many people believe that ethical choices revolve around what bring happiness. Understandably, they aren’t aware of the cause and effect relationship between emotions and values and that happiness is largely conceptual in nature.

The more I thought about this though, a question came to mind. Are all types of happiness the result of achieving values that have life as their standard? I don’t think so.

Here are two examples that do:

1) A person enjoys computer programming, not intrinsically, but because he values how the product of his labor can be used to improve some aspect of his life.

2) A researcher enjoys her work searching for a cure to a disease, because she stands to gain financially if she is successful, and because that cure will help those inflicted with the disease.

But it seems as though there are values that we hold that do not have life as their standard. For example:

3) Many people get pleasure from playing sports.

4) We get pleasure from having friendships and romantic relationships.

5) Listening to music is a value to many because of the pleasure it brings.

So would it be considered hedonistic to pursue these pleasures? (I don’t mean as a way of life, but the way most people do in their free time.) If so, then there is some place for hedonism within Objectivism. Or does hedonism only refer to a code of action in which pursuing pleasures is one’s way of life?

[ewv 0]

Why are 3-5 any less related to the nature of human life as a standard than 1-2?

[Nate Smith 0]

Why are 3-5 any less related to the nature of human life as a standard than 1-2?

I'm not saying they are less related to the nature of human life. My claim is that they don't have the same standard/purpose connection that 1 and 2 do. If it's there, I don't see it.

Since it can be hard at first for people to see the connection between values and happiness (between beliefs and emotions), the first two are good examples to illustrate Rand's point. Once one has consciously decided that computer programming and medical research are of objective value, it then becomes possible to get pleasure from success in those endeavors. (The movie Karate Kid comes to mind; all that waxing on and off would have been torture not knowing what purpose it was serving. Once Daniel found out the reason, he was highly motivated to do it and enjoyed it.)

With regards to 3-5, I don't know why I like playing sports, why I like music, and why I like being around other people. For someone who isn't aware of the Objectivist ethics, these sorts of pleasures certainly seem to reinforce the idea of hedonism.

[ewv 0]

I'm not saying they are less related to the nature of human life. My claim is that they don't have the same standard/purpose connection that 1 and 2 do. If it's there, I don't see it.

Since it can be hard at first for people to see the connection between values and happiness (between beliefs and emotions), the first two are good examples to illustrate Rand's point. Once one has consciously decided that computer programming and medical research are of objective value, it then becomes possible to get pleasure from success in those endeavors. (The movie Karate Kid comes to mind; all that waxing on and off would have been torture not knowing what purpose it was serving. Once Daniel found out the reason, he was highly motivated to do it and enjoyed it.)

But you don't and should not want to make a career out of everything you see to be of objective value. Value for what? What you enjoy doing depends on your abilities and experience. You can recognize the value of medicine and computers but hate doing it yourself, let alone devoting a lifetime to it.

With regards to 3-5, I don't know why I like playing sports, why I like music, and why I like being around other people. For someone who isn't aware of the Objectivist ethics, these sorts of pleasures certainly seem to reinforce the idea of hedonism.

Not every value has to be directly for survival itself, and a raw survival value isn't required for a career. Not everyone has to be a farmer or a doctor or similar role. Successful human life consists of much more than staying alive. Ayn Rand has explicitly discussed the value of friendship, romantic love, and the arts, and you can read her explanation of the value of hobbies in her article on stamp collecting. You can obtain value from all kinds of activities, but must keep the hierarchy in context. A person good at sports or music could make a productive career out of it as teaching or entertainment, but for most people, spending too much time enjoying it would sacrifice a productive career.

Once you have your hierarchy of values worked out you don't have to analyze every choice you make, it would drive you crazy. If you 'feel' like listening to music, you do it, either while doing something else or sitting down and focusing on it -- as long as it isn't obstructing something more important. You don't do this blindly, you can quickly assess it, maintaining the level of focus needed, which is usually not intense. Many of the minor choices you make are optional and would be impossible to validate in detail against all other possibilities -- you would spend all your time analyzing yourself and getting nothing done.

Recognizing that isn't hedonism. The more you do it properly, the more automatized it becomes. But if you're starting from scratch with a lot of bad habits and a bad hierarchy of values, then you have a lot of thinking to do about what is right and what choices to make throughout the day until you get it straightened out. Hedonism says something is right because you feel like doing it.

[Arnold 0]

The key is to distinguish between long term happiness which requires reasoned judgement, and hedonistic pleasure which depends on none.

The purpose of life is to enjoy it. Without pleasure, life is not worth living. However, pleasure per-se is not a standard for decision making. It is one's long term happiness that makes life worth living, and that is the standard for making decisions. Life itself has no intrinsic value apart from the happiness attached to it. Some lives are miserable and so unhappy that they are not worth living.

One can have a situation where pain and not pleasure is in one's long term interest (happiness). Take for example a choice of going to the dentist and getting a filling (painful - not pleasant) and going fishing or sailing (or any pleasurable alternative). Your long term happiness is not determined by pleasure in this case, but a concern for you health that will aid your enjoyment of life. The alternative of rotten teeth spell misery.

[Leonid 0]

I was recently discussing standards of value with someone not familiar with Objectivism. After laying out Ayn Rand’s argument for how and why life is the standard of value, he was not pleased at first. His response was essentially, “What about happiness? Happiness and pleasure are what motivate us and drive our choices and actions. An ethics that doesn’t account for happiness seems empty.”

I explained how our emotional responses are reactions resulting from our chosen values, and that Rand wasn’t overlooking happiness. Since it is the result of choosing and achieving values that are good for the life of the individual, happiness and morality are inextricably linked. He was much more pleased with this account.

But his concern was a reminder that many people believe that ethical choices revolve around what bring happiness. Understandably, they aren’t aware of the cause and effect relationship between emotions and values and that happiness is largely conceptual in nature.

The more I thought about this though, a question came to mind. Are all types of happiness the result of achieving values that have life as their standard? I don’t think so.

Here are two examples that do:

1) A person enjoys computer programming, not intrinsically, but because he values how the product of his labor can be used to improve some aspect of his life.

2) A researcher enjoys her work searching for a cure to a disease, because she stands to gain financially if she is successful, and because that cure will help those inflicted with the disease.

But it seems as though there are values that we hold that do not have life as their standard. For example:

3) Many people get pleasure from playing sports.

4) We get pleasure from having friendships and romantic relationships.

5) Listening to music is a value to many because of the pleasure it brings.

So would it be considered hedonistic to pursue these pleasures? (I don’t mean as a way of life, but the way most people do in their free time.) If so, then there is some place for hedonism within Objectivism. Or does hedonism only refer to a code of action in which pursuing pleasures is one’s way of life?

Exercising the mind is one of the biggest pleasures which exist and since the mind is a tool of survival this exercise is inherently connected to the life as a standard of value. It is a proof that metaphysically man can live. So looking for the cure of a disease or solving a difficult completely abstract mathematical problem which has no practical application whatsoever, or the invention of a new metal gives the greatest satisfaction which is possible to man. Ask yourself why Rearden in AS spent ten agonizing years in Ayn Rand words to invent his metal? If it only money he was after, he could make a fortune by selling steel. He already was a very wealthy producer. Friendship and romantic relationship are in essence a trade of values and affirmation of life. Music and art in general are concretisation of a man's intrinsic metaphysical view of existence and also the affirmation of his values. Sport is an affirmation of man's physical fitness to exist. So one cannot really separate pleasure from values and life as their ultimate standard.

[Leonid 0]

Hedonism is an ethical theory in which pleasure is an ultimate value. The obvious question in regard to this notion is what then is a cause of pleasure? Why we enjoy some things and hate others? If pleasure is separated from the standard of value then it becomes an intrinsic mystical feature. Then one can claim that Rearden had been created or conditioned to make his metal, or in the words of Dr. Ferris he "couldn't help" doing that.