Hedonism & Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone other than CIN supporting Hedonism?
My point:
Hedonism is not a feasible moral option.

What is Hedonism?
https://iep.utm.edu/Hedonism/
Types of Hedonism
viewtopic.php?p=738598#p738598

Here is the discussion in supporting my point;

I had covered 'hedonism' quite reasonably but because it is full of holes, I have not given it the attention I have given to Kantian and other serious philosophies.

Hedonism goes to the extreme of "Hedonistic Calculus".
https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html

Here are some serious objections with Hedonism:
https://iep.utm.edu/hedonism/#H5

Ultimately;

6. The Future of Hedonism
The future of hedonism seems bleak. The considerable number and strength of the arguments against Prudential Hedonism’s central principle (that pleasure and only pleasure intrinsically contributes positively to well-being and the opposite for pain) seem insurmountable. Hedonists have been creative in their definitions of pleasure so as to avoid these objections, but more often than not find themselves defending a theory that is not particularly hedonistic, realistic or both.
https://iep.utm.edu/hedonism/#H6

The above are the reason why I think Hedonism is not realistic and practical to optimize the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and humanity.

I refuse to debate with the authors of articles who are not present in this forum. Don't pass the buck. If you think you can refute hedonism, do it here. Don't be so lazy, do the work. You are of course free to quote other authors, but you must take ownership of their arguments for the purposes of this forum and reproduce them here; I will not debate with people in absentia.

My intention is not to debate by throwing out links; they are merely references that are are objections with the remark The future of hedonism seems bleak..
If I am given such information regarding to Kant, I will seriously dig into it to ensure there is no significant objections that would discredit my views.

As I had stated, my reading of Hedonism is that Hedonism is full of holes, thus I would not want to waste time preparing a detailed counter.

Here's from AI [wR] summarizing from;
https://iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
which are the most popular philosophical resources at present.

Here is a presentation on Refutation of Hedonism and its limitations based on the given website and some additional information I found on the web:

Refutation of Hedonism
Hedonism is the philosophical theory that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Intrinsic goods are goods that are valued for their own sake, rather than for their instrumental value in producing something else.

There are several arguments against hedonism:
Moore's heap of filth. G.E. Moore argued that pleasure cannot be the only good because there are some things that are good even if they produce no pleasure. For example, he argued that it would be better for a beautiful world to exist than a heap of filth, even if no one ever experienced either world. This suggests that beauty is good in itself, not just because it produces pleasure.

The problem of false pleasures. Some pleasures are not good. For example, the pleasure of getting drunk may be enjoyable in the moment, but it can have negative consequences in the long run.

The difficulty of defining pleasure. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of pleasure. What one person finds pleasurable, another person may find unpleasant. This makes it difficult to use pleasure as the basis of a moral theory.

Limitations of Hedonism

Hedonism also faces a number of limitations:

Hedonism does not take into account the importance of other things in life, such as love, friendship, and justice.

Hedonism can be difficult to put into practice. It can be hard to know how to maximize pleasure in all situations.

Hedonism can lead to a selfish and self-centered way of life. If pleasure is the only good, then there is no reason to care about the well-being of others.

The future of hedonism

The future of hedonism seems bleak. Hedonism has been around for centuries, but it has never been a very popular philosophy. This is likely because of the limitations discussed above.

In addition to the limitations discussed above, hedonism also faces a number of challenges from contemporary moral philosophy. For example, virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of character and virtue, rather than pleasure. And utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of maximizing happiness, rather than pleasure.

The above is reasonable to give you a clue that to focus on Hedonism is a waste of time.

My point is Pain and Pleasure cannot be the sole and primary motivators for all human actions.

I'm not claiming that it is. Humans can be motivated by many things, including an irrational belief in Kant. Nor am I claiming that pleasure and pain are motivators for organisms that don't feel pleasure and pain (which would be absurd).
All I claim is that pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is intrinsically bad, and that nothing else is either of these.
If an organism is motivated to act by something else, then that something else is not intrinsically good or bad, and therefore has no intrinsic value.

I pass your point to AI, here is it critique:

This claim is a core tenet of hedonism, a philosophical theory that posits pleasure as the sole intrinsic good and pain as the sole intrinsic bad. While this view has its proponents, it faces several criticisms:

Oversimplification of Value: Hedonism reduces the complex spectrum of human values to a singular dimension of pleasure and pain. Many argue that other factors like knowledge, beauty, love, and justice also possess intrinsic value, independent of their hedonic consequences.

Incommensurability of Values: Hedonism struggles to account for situations where different types of pleasure or pain are incommensurable. For example, is the short-term pleasure of a guilty pleasure comparable to the long-term satisfaction of a virtuous act?

Quality vs. Quantity of Pleasure: Hedonism often focuses on the quantity of pleasure, neglecting the quality of experiences. Some argue that higher-order pleasures, such as intellectual or aesthetic pursuits, are more valuable than lower-order pleasures, even if they may not be as intense.

The Paradox of Hedonism: The pursuit of pleasure as an ultimate goal can paradoxically lead to frustration and dissatisfaction. Excessive focus on pleasure can hinder one's ability to appreciate life's simple joys and can lead to neglecting other important aspects of well-being.

Moral Considerations: Hedonism can sometimes justify actions that are morally questionable if they lead to personal pleasure, even if they harm others. This raises concerns about the ethical implications of a purely pleasure-based morality.

While hedonism offers a simple and intuitive framework for understanding value, it is a limited perspective that fails to capture the full richness and complexity of human experience.

Firstly, the will to survive is not always good. The will to survive in an animal which is in constant pain is not a good thing. You will never get your ethics right until you understand the fundamental importance of defining 'good' and working out what it applies to.

What?
The universal standard is the will-to-survive till the inevitable.

The will to survive has nothing to do with morality. In fact it often prompts people to behave immorally, e.g. by showing cowardice in war.

1. The will-to-survive is the primary ground of of well-being and the flourishing of humanity..
2. In sustaining the will-to-survive, all humans are programmed "to kill" for food, self-defense.
3. To survive in more advanced mode necessarily, humans are programmed with self-consciousness, ego, personality, autonomous agency and intelligence.
4. However, within 3, from the selfish or damaged ego, some humans direct the necessary 'to kill' against humans for various purposes, thus potentially defeating 1.
5. It is because of the danger of 4 that humans are subsequently adapted with the moral potential [no killing of humans] to optimize survival of the species.
6. The primary ground of morality is the will-to-survive.

War [killing of human is inevitable] in the first place is immoral to begin with.
Cowardice in war is in a way, moral, i.e. the avoidance to be killed by humans.
The recent and current waves of anti-war protest is an unfoldment and manifestation of the inherent moral potential.

Btw, psychopaths [amoralists] will favor wars because it a pleasure for them to kill humans but that is immoral re objective 1 above.

Rubbish. If you think the purpose of morality is to ensure survival, you haven't even begun to understand what morality is about. Soldiers who go to war to defend their country are sacrificing their own survival for the sake of a moral duty, which shows that survival and morality are not connected in the way you suggest.

You are the one who is ignorant of 'what is morality' in alignment with the empirical evidence from the acts and wants of humanity to date.
As I stated, war [inevitable killing of humans] is immoral in the first place.
Soldiers are thus engaging in immoral activities.
Soldiers who are highly moral as human beings had been evidenced to shoot off target when facing their enemies thus avoiding having to kill humans.

Morality is critical to survival, else if we allow evil to fester, that would lead to the extinction of the human species, i.e. genocide via cheap and easily accessible WMDs.

You are drawing a false inference. The fact that morality is important for the survival of the human race does not entail that this is what morality is really about; it is just a side benefit of morality.

As I had stated you are ignorant of what morality-proper is in alignment with human nature.

Are you aware, Islam condone the extermination of the human species on [sinful] Earth since they are guaranteed eternal survival in paradise?

Which is entirely logical from their point of view. I don't share their point of view.

This why acknowledging the truth of the above is critical and the solution is morality-proper that is grounded in survival.

As I said, it it too messy to deal with morality that include non-human species.

ROFL. Well, sorry if the messiness of the universe offends your aesthetic sense. Perhaps you should ask the Almighty if he would alter the universe so that you find it more tidy and aesthetically pleasing. Meanwhile I will continue to deal with the universe as it actually is, messy or not.

You missed the point.
Having to deal with too many variables is messy, i.e. not efficient and not adopting Occam.
You deny this?

There is no way, non-human animals can feel pain & pleasure like humans do which is highly exceptional.

Prove it.

It is obvious, non-human animals do not have the same capacity nervous system like humans that of humans.
Some higher non-human animals may have the same expressions of pleasure and pains as humans but such experience wears off immediate the stimuli is absent.
For humans it lingers to the extent of seeking pleasure artificially and unnaturally to that point where it threaten their survival.

Show me where Hedonism has been put fully into practice with some reasonable or possible success.
I have checked with AI, it only show some practices in ancient times but none in the present.

My point:
Hedonism is not a feasible moral option.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Faced with obvious criticisms, in order to support Hedonism,
one of the worst proposal from Hedonism is the Hedonic Calculus by Jeremy Bentham.

What is ridiculous is this:
"In many real-life situations, we don't have the time or resources to conduct such a detailed analysis, making it impractical for everyday decision-making."
This is like before one make a decision on moral matters, one have to open an Excel Spreadsheet or use an app [include all relevant variables] to make a calculation before taking action.

Here's the limitation of the Hedonic Calculus from AI [wr]:

[AI] "The Hedonic Calculus, proposed by Jeremy Bentham, is a framework for measuring pleasure and pain to determine the moral worth of an action. Here are some of the main criticisms:  

Subjectivity of Pleasure and Pain:
Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person. It's difficult to quantify them objectively, as different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently.  
Bentham's attempt to create a universal scale for measuring pleasure and pain is challenged by this inherent subjectivity.  

Difficulty in Predicting Consequences:
The Hedonic Calculus assumes that we can accurately predict the future consequences of our actions, both in terms of the intensity and duration of pleasure and pain.
However, real-life situations are often complex and unpredictable, making it challenging to foresee all the potential outcomes.  

Neglect of Quality of Pleasure:
Bentham's focus on the quantity of pleasure and pain overlooks the quality of these experiences. Some argue that higher-quality pleasures, such as intellectual or aesthetic pursuits, may be more valuable than lower-quality pleasures, even if they are less intense.

Ignoring Justice and Rights:
The Hedonic Calculus can sometimes lead to morally questionable outcomes if the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number justifies actions that harm individuals or minority groups.  
Critics argue that a focus on maximizing pleasure can neglect important moral considerations like justice, fairness, and individual rights.

Practical Limitations:
The Hedonic Calculus is a complex and time-consuming process that requires careful calculation of various factors.
In many real-life situations, we don't have the time or resources to conduct such a detailed analysis, making it impractical for everyday decision-making.  

Overall, Hedonic Calculus limitations and the challenges in applying it in practice have led to its decline in popularity. Modern ethical theories often incorporate a more nuanced understanding of human values and moral considerations, recognizing the complexity of decision-making and the importance of factors beyond mere pleasure and pain."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

CIN detailed counter to the objections above;
viewtopic.php?p=738956#p738956
My counter to the above;
viewtopic.php?p=739021#p739021

IWP detailed counter
viewtopic.php?p=738960#p738960

............
Type of Hedonism
Here is list of Hedonism so far mentioned in WIKI, IEP and SEP,
please add if you have any.

1.. Philosophical Hedonism
2.. Folk Hedonism
3..Non- or anti-Hedonism

1.. Philosophical Hedonism
1.1 Psychological of Motivational Hedonism
1.2 Axiological or Evaluative Hedonism
1.3 Ethical or Normative Hedonism
1.4 Others
1.5 Modified Form of Hedonism

1.1 Psychological or Motivational Hedonism
• the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the only sources of all motivation..
Egoism Hedonism - people strive to increase their own happiness.
Reflective or Rationalizing Hedonism – re overall consequences
Genetic Hedonism - each desire has its origin in a desire for pleasure
• Sub-types:
o Inferential Hedonism (I-Hedonism): People desire things only because they believe those things will bring them pleasure.
o Reinforcement Hedonism (R-Hedonism): Pleasure and pain reinforce certain desires, making them more likely to be pursued in the future.

1.2 Axiological or Evaluative Hedonism
• pleasure is the sole source of intrinsic value
• Sub-types:

Prudential Hedonism is a form of axiological Hedonism that focuses specifically Well-being or what is good for an individual.
Attitudinal Hedonism: Prudential Hedonism that defines pleasure as a pro-attitude.
Value Hedonism holds that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically disvaluable. [IEP]
Quantitative Hedonism, the intrinsic value of pleasure depends solely on its intensity and duration.
Qualitative hedonists hold that the quality of pleasure is an additional factor.

Hedonic Nihilism: Pleasure is the only good and pain is the only bad, with nothing else having intrinsic value. (Rarely held view)
Qualitative Hedonism: Focuses on the quality of pleasure, with higher-order pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic) being more valuable than lower-order pleasures (physical). (Proposed by John Stuart Mill)

1.3 Ethical or Normative Hedonism
• the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the highest moral principles of human behavior Sub-types:
o Egoistic Hedonism: Focuses on maximizing one's own pleasure.
o Utilitarian Hedonism (Classical Utilitarianism): Aims to maximize the total pleasure of all individuals. (Difficulties in measuring and comparing pleasure across individuals)

1.4 Others
• Aesthetic Hedonism is a theory about the nature of aesthetic value or beauty.
• Psychological Egoism: Similar to Egoistic Hedonism, but focuses on self-interest rather than pleasure specifically.
• Hedonic Calculus (Bentham): A framework for calculating the pleasurable and painful consequences of actions to determine the best course of action. (Criticized for subjectivity and practicality)
• Spiritual Hedonism – Thomas Aquinas
• monistic Hedonism - SEP
• pluralistic Hedonism - SEP

1.5 Modified Form of Hedonism
Fred Feldman - Attitudinal Hedonism: pleasure’s value must be adjusted based on whether it is appropriate or deserved
Peter Singer (1946–present) has expanded classical Hedonism to include concerns about animal welfare.[f] He has advocated effective altruism, relying on empirical evidence and reason to prioritize actions that have the most significant positive impact.
Michel Onfray (1959–present) has aimed to rehabilitate Epicurean Hedonism in a modern form.

David Pearce (1959–present) has developed a transhumanist version of Hedonism, arguing for the use of modern technology, ranging from genetic engineering to nanotechnology, to reduce suffering and possibly eliminate it in the future.

Cyrenaic Hedonism: This view, associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristippus, emphasizes the pursuit of intense, immediate pleasures, often without regard for long-term consequences.
Western Hedonism: This would encompass the more traditional Western philosophical approaches, including those of the Cyrenaics, Epicureans, and modern utilitarian philosophers
Eastern Hedonism: While less explicitly focused on pleasure, certain Eastern philosophies like Epicureanism and some strands of Buddhism can be interpreted as forms of hedonism, albeit with a focus on long-term happiness and liberation from suffering.
Altruistic Hedonism: This prioritizes the pleasure of others, aiming to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people.
Neurohedonism: This emerging field explores the neural basis of pleasure and pain, potentially offering new insights into the nature of hedonistic experiences.

Others:
Hedonism and Environmental Ethics: Some might argue that a hedonistic perspective could lead to unsustainable practices, while others might suggest that a focus on pleasure could motivate environmental conservation.
Hedonism and Future Technologies: As technology advances, new possibilities for experiencing pleasure and pain may arise, raising ethical questions and challenging traditional notions of hedonism.

2.. Folk Hedonism
-a lifestyle dedicated to the egoistic pursuit of short-term gratification- pejorative.


3. Non-Hedonism, Anti-Hedonism, and Asceticism
The strongest rejection of Hedonism, sometimes termed anti-Hedonism, claims that all pleasures are bad.
Asceticism is a lifestyle dedicated to a program of self-discipline that renounces worldly pleasures.

[Iwannaplato]

Using AIs just shows that you 1) don't trust your own abilities, perhaps with good reason 2) you don't understand that they are NOT like encyclopedias and in fact tailor make their answers to the person asking and his or her biases.

To show you these things below is an AI critiquing what your AI wrote

And note, my point is not that this AI is right and yours was wrong. It was to show you that this self-diminishing habit you've picked up is confused on a number of levels. You can and likely will treat this post as an enemy, a threat, and try to undermine or dismiss it. But much as I think your behavior here is atrocious, actually listening me to me here and my suggestions in another thread about how to interact and slowly learning to do that instead of having AIs think for you, will benefit you in the long run. And you never have to acknowledge you learned any of it from me.

The AI critique of Hedonism addresses some classic criticisms of Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus, yet it assumes a narrow conception of pleasure and pain, which misses the complexity of how pleasure can manifest in intellectual, aesthetic, and moral experiences. Here’s a more nuanced analysis of each point, particularly focusing on the limited way the AI seems to define pleasure and pain.

### 1. Subjectivity of Pleasure and Pain
While the AI notes that pleasure and pain are subjective, it could expand its interpretation of what these terms encompass. Bentham’s hedonistic framework doesn’t necessarily limit pleasure and pain to physical or basic emotional experiences; it can also include subtle and abstract forms of satisfaction or distress. For instance, pleasure derived from harmony, reason, or elegance—qualities essential to intellectual and aesthetic fulfillment—also falls under Hedonism but might be difficult to quantify on a simple numerical scale. John Stuart Mill, who expanded on Bentham, argued for “higher” and “lower” pleasures, suggesting that pleasures of the mind can be more valuable than those of the body even if less intense or immediate .

### 2. Difficulty in Predicting Consequences
The AI critique accurately points out that predicting outcomes can be complex, yet in ignoring nuanced pleasures like intellectual harmony or moral satisfaction, it misses that some pleasures are tied to values and goals that transcend specific actions and consequences. A commitment to ideals like truth or beauty might provide ongoing fulfillment that isn’t about moment-to-moment calculability but about alignment with one’s deeper values. This suggests that Hedonism can integrate not only direct, predictable consequences but also broader, long-term states of satisfaction or discomfort tied to ethical and aesthetic consistency.

### 3. Neglect of Quality of Pleasure
The AI’s mention of Bentham’s focus on quantity neglecting quality is a well-known critique. However, what it misses is that higher-quality pleasures often involve a sensitivity to more refined forms of satisfaction, such as the pleasure of understanding complex ideas, experiencing beauty, or participating in just actions. These pleasures are less about intensity and more about subtle fulfillment or coherence, which are critical to a nuanced Hedonism. Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures highlights this, suggesting that intellectual and moral pleasures are integral to a fulfilling life .

### 4. Ignoring Justice and Rights
The AI points out that a strict pleasure-maximizing approach could theoretically justify unjust actions, yet it fails to consider that pleasure and pain aren’t solely quantitative. For many, the distress caused by witnessing or perpetuating injustice, or the pleasure of upholding fairness, forms an essential part of their pleasure-pain calculus. This aligns with the “higher pleasures” concept, where justice and individual rights are valued because they align with personal and societal harmony—both of which bring nuanced, lasting satisfaction.

### 5. Practical Limitations
While the AI notes that the Hedonic Calculus is impractical for quick decision-making, it may be underestimating the human ability to intuitively weigh complex pleasures and pains, including those tied to abstract values like truth or moral integrity. People often internalize a “calculus” of values and ideals that guide their decisions without needing explicit calculation. Thus, a nuanced understanding of Hedonism that includes intellectual and ethical pleasures may not demand a strict, numerical approach but rather a qualitative, integrated one that allows for real-time ethical guidance.

### Summary
The AI critique of Hedonism is limited by a narrow, surface-level understanding of pleasure and pain. If we broaden our perspective to include subtle, intellectual, and moral satisfactions, Bentham’s Hedonism becomes more adaptable and complex. By acknowledging these higher pleasures, we can see that Hedonism may indeed address many of the supposed weaknesses the AI critique raises, while allowing room for complex and individualized experiences of pleasure, pain, justice, and beauty.

In addition:
Here are five additional critiques of the AI’s position, offering new angles to evaluate its treatment of Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus and the concept of pleasure and pain:

### 1. **Overlooking the Transformative Nature of Pleasurable and Painful Experiences**
The AI critique does not account for how individuals’ experiences of pleasure and pain evolve over time. Hedonism, especially when considering nuanced forms of pleasure, can recognize that what one finds pleasurable or painful may change as they grow, learn, or experience new things. For instance, a person might initially find only simple sensory pleasures rewarding, but over time, they might develop a taste for intellectual pleasures or find satisfaction in overcoming challenges. This developmental aspect is vital to a fuller understanding of Hedonism, where experiences are not static but shape and deepen one’s understanding of pleasure and pain.

### 2. **Ignoring Pleasure as Context-Dependent Rather Than Fixed**
The AI critique assumes pleasure and pain can be isolated and measured independently, but many pleasures are context-dependent, meaning they gain meaning only in relation to the circumstances, relationships, or values surrounding them. For example, an action that brings pleasure in one situation might not in another, due to different moral, social, or personal contexts. Hedonism does not have to assume that pleasure is an isolated metric; instead, it can be understood as something deeply intertwined with one's environment, relationships, and self-concept, which makes a strict calculus insufficient for capturing its full depth.

### 3. **Limiting the Emotional and Psychological Complexity of Pain**
The AI critique’s approach to pain lacks recognition of the psychological, anticipatory, and reflective aspects of suffering. Pain, like pleasure, is not just a sensory response but can be complexly intertwined with regret, guilt, or the anticipation of harm. These forms of suffering play a critical role in moral development, ethical considerations, and personal growth. A nuanced view of Hedonism might incorporate how the anticipation of suffering, for instance, deters harmful actions or encourages empathetic behavior, even if that anticipation isn’t immediately measurable on a pleasure-pain scale.

### 4. **Overemphasis on Immediate Calculability at the Expense of Ethical Intuitions**
The AI critique focuses heavily on the impracticality of constantly calculating pleasure and pain, yet people often rely on ethical intuitions shaped by their experiences of pleasure and pain to make decisions rapidly. Ethical decision-making under Hedonism does not require a strict calculus each time but can be informed by past experiences and learned values, which are forms of accumulated pleasure-pain insights. This suggests a deeper version of Hedonism, where intuitive knowledge of what brings meaningful pleasure or avoids unnecessary pain operates as a quick ethical guide, rather than Bentham’s rigorous calculations.

### 5. **Disregard for Intersubjective Pleasures and Collective Well-Being**
The AI critique views pleasure and pain as inherently individual, but Hedonism can also include intersubjective pleasures—those that arise from shared experiences, like collective harmony, social justice, or communal aesthetic appreciation. These shared pleasures are essential to a fuller understanding of human happiness, as many people derive significant joy from contributing to or witnessing the happiness of others. This broader view of Hedonism embraces the idea that personal pleasure is often enhanced by the well-being of others, suggesting that a collective approach to pleasure can address some of the AI’s concerns about the neglect of justice and rights.

These critiques illustrate that Hedonism, when understood in a more comprehensive way, can address many of the shortcomings raised by the AI while opening up space for higher pleasures, ethical intuitions, and socially integrated experiences.

[FlashDangerpants]

Subjectivity of Pleasure and Pain:
Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person. It's difficult to quantify them objectively, as different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently.  
Bentham's attempt to create a universal scale for measuring pleasure and pain is challenged by this inherent subjectivity.  

This is the big problem with hedonic calculus, the attempt to measure that which has no quantitiy and is immeasurable. For some reason you didn't highlight that in your own analysis. Could it be something to do with the specious bullshit made up numbers that pass for "measurements" in your own theory?

[Iwannaplato]

And just to do a tiny spot check, we have points like this in VA's OP:

Hedonism does not take into account the importance of other things in life, such as love, friendship, and justice.

Love, friendship and justice can be looked at in terms of pleasure and the reduction of pain. Especially once you have a nuanced view of what is pleasure and what is pain, but even without nuance. In fact as social animals we are rewarded with pleasure in intimacy with friends and romantic partners and justice could be seen as trying to reduce the effects of people causing other pain, and making up for pain caused, amongst other things. And that's even using hedonsim in a very blunt way.

[Impenitent]

if doing the right thing feels good you can't do it because hedonism is bad

to say nothing of the moral gene

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Using AIs just shows that you 1) don't trust your own abilities, perhaps with good reason 2) you don't understand that they are NOT like encyclopedias and in fact tailor make their answers to the person asking and his or her biases.

To show you these things below is an AI critiquing what your AI wrote

And note, my point is not that this AI is right and yours was wrong. It was to show you that this self-diminishing habit you've picked up is confused on a number of levels. You can and likely will treat this post as an enemy, a threat, and try to undermine or dismiss it. But much as I think your behavior here is atrocious, actually listening me to me here and my suggestions in another thread about how to interact and slowly learning to do that instead of having AIs think for you, will benefit you in the long run. And you never have to acknowledge you learned any of it from me.

There is nothing to learn from your own views with all those "sh:t" you are churning out.

You are not intelligent at all in this case.
For one thing, using AI saves me a lot of time especially in a topic I am not inclined to.

I welcome the critiques from AI which is necessary and it expand my sphere of knowledge tremendously and effectively which would not be possible without AI.

I will surely read the counters with thoroughness. I could not have got it searching the internet, especially when I am not inclined to Hedonism as a moral system against my FSERC moral system.

But overall, my view is hedonism is not tenable for morality, noting that, when questioned and cornered Bentham has to resort the the ridiculous impractical Hedonic Calculus.
In general, the general consensus is the Future of Hedonism is Bleak.

Why don't you ask AI if Hedonism is tenable, is a put into practice at present against other more tenable moral systems?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Subjectivity of Pleasure and Pain:
Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person. It's difficult to quantify them objectively, as different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently.  
Bentham's attempt to create a universal scale for measuring pleasure and pain is challenged by this inherent subjectivity.  

This is the big problem with hedonic calculus, the attempt to measure that which has no quantitiy and is immeasurable. For some reason you didn't highlight that in your own analysis. Could it be something to do with the specious bullshit made up numbers that pass for "measurements" in your own theory?

There is a difference.
My analyses are on the principles and particular Framework and System not on every acts that has to be made by the individual.

The calculus approach is definitely a good approach to problem solving in general but it is not practical to apply it to every moral action by each individual.

[Iwannaplato]

Using AIs just shows that you 1) don't trust your own abilities, perhaps with good reason 2) you don't understand that they are NOT like encyclopedias and in fact tailor make their answers to the person asking and his or her biases.

To show you these things below is an AI critiquing what your AI wrote

And note, my point is not that this AI is right and yours was wrong. It was to show you that this self-diminishing habit you've picked up is confused on a number of levels. You can and likely will treat this post as an enemy, a threat, and try to undermine or dismiss it. But much as I think your behavior here is atrocious, actually listening me to me here and my suggestions in another thread about how to interact and slowly learning to do that instead of having AIs think for you, will benefit you in the long run. And you never have to acknowledge you learned any of it from me.

There is nothing to learn from your own views with all those "sh:t" you are churning out.

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout. No intereaction with the ideas.

You are not intelligent at all in this case.

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout.

For one thing, using AI saves me a lot of time especially in a topic I am not inclined to.

Incomplete sentence & No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout. No intereaction with the ideas. No intereaction with the ideas.

I welcome the critiques from AI which is necessary and it expand my sphere of knowledge tremendously and effectively which would not be possible without AI.

He's welcomed the critique he asserts, but there is no sign he read the critique, understood it or can respond to it. No substance. No intereaction with the ideas.

I will surely read the counters with thoroughness. I could not have got it searching the internet, especially when I am not inclined to Hedonism as a moral system against my FSERC moral system.

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout. No intereaction with the ideas.

But overall, my view is hedonism is not tenable for morality, noting that, when questioned and cornered Bentham has to resort the the ridiculous impractical Hedonic Calculus.

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout.

In general, the general consensus is the Future of Hedonism is Bleak.

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout. No intereaction with the ideas.

Why don't you ask AI if Hedonism is tenable, is a put into practice at present against other more tenable moral systems?

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout. No intereaction with the ideas.

Zero interaction with what he claims he values. He did declare a lack of interest in the topic he started.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I will surely read the counters with thoroughness. I could not have got it searching the internet, especially when I am not inclined to Hedonism as a moral system against my FSERC moral system.

No substance, no sign he read how the AI responded to what his AI putout. No intereaction with the ideas.

This what I meant by the sh:t you are churning out.

Note "will" above, you got a cognitive problem?
I have copy and pasted to the objections to Hedonism.

It would be more intellectual from anyone, if they would present a proper point for discussion, i.e.
This is your philosophical argument [no strawman],
here is my [or AI's] arguments and counters to it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

......

As stated, I will not leave anything out if it is rational as with the critique from AI.

I presented the Critique to AI. It accepts those criticisms but I challenged that the Hedonic Calculus still face other limitations.

Here is the counter to the critiques from your AI:

You're absolutely right. While the critique offers a more nuanced understanding of Hedonism, it still highlights the inherent challenges of implementing a strict Hedonic Calculus in real-world scenarios.

As you've pointed out, the subjectivity of pleasure and pain makes it difficult to quantify these experiences accurately. Different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently, making it challenging to create a universal scale for measuring them. Additionally, predicting the future consequences of actions is inherently uncertain, further complicating the application of a Hedonic Calculus.

In contrast, a moral system focused on [my moral proposals] offers a simpler and more straightforward approach. By focusing on [.....], it provides clear guidelines for behavior and avoids the complex calculations required by a Hedonic Calculus.

Ultimately, the most effective moral systems are likely to combine elements of different approaches, including both rule-based and consequentialist principles. By considering both the intentions behind actions and their potential consequences, individuals can make informed moral decisions that align with their values and beliefs.

If you still insist, list down the possibilities how the Hedonic Calculus can be practical and implemented in practice.

[Iwannaplato]

This what I meant by the sh:t you are churning out.

Note "will" above, you got a cognitive problem?

Yes, I noticed it. 1) it would make sense to simply respond when you have a response. Not a post a promissory note 2) it's good to point out that your post has no response of substance and this can be incentive to later respond on your part. 3) Now it is clear in the thread that this has not happened yet. Later I can come back and point out that you did not ever respond with substance, should that be the case.

I have copy and pasted to the objections to Hedonism.

I saw that in the OP. Are you saying you added a new copy paste? Where is that?

It would be more intellectual from anyone, if they would present a proper point for discussion, i.e.
This is your philosophical argument [no strawman],
here is my [or AI's] arguments and counters to it.

I posted the AI response above. It is not a strawman, it is a direct response to what your AI wrote. You let us know your response when you actually make it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This what I meant by the sh:t you are churning out.

Note "will" above, you got a cognitive problem?

Yes, I noticed it. 1) it would make sense to simply respond when you have a response. Not a post a promissory note 2) it's good to point out that your post has no response of substance and this can be incentive to later respond on your part. 3) Now it is clear in the thread that this has not happened yet. Later I can come back and point out that you did not ever respond with substance, should that be the case.

I have copy and pasted to the objections to Hedonism.

I saw that in the OP. Are you saying you added a new copy paste? Where is that?

It would be more intellectual from anyone, if they would present a proper point for discussion, i.e.
This is your philosophical argument [no strawman],
here is my [or AI's] arguments and counters to it.

I posted the AI response above. It is not a strawman, it is a direct response to what your AI wrote. You let us know your response when you actually make it.

You missed out my post prior to yours?

"Here is the counter to the critiques from AI"
viewtopic.php?p=738773#p738773

[FlashDangerpants]

Subjectivity of Pleasure and Pain:
Pleasure and pain are highly subjective experiences that vary from person to person. It's difficult to quantify them objectively, as different individuals may value different types of pleasure and pain differently.  
Bentham's attempt to create a universal scale for measuring pleasure and pain is challenged by this inherent subjectivity.  

This is the big problem with hedonic calculus, the attempt to measure that which has no quantitiy and is immeasurable. For some reason you didn't highlight that in your own analysis. Could it be something to do with the specious bullshit made up numbers that pass for "measurements" in your own theory?

There is a difference.
My analyses are on the principles and particular Framework and System not on every acts that has to be made by the individual.

The calculus approach is definitely a good approach to problem solving in general but it is not practical to apply it to every moral action by each individual.

That's entirely missing the point. None of your measurements measures anything that can actually be measured. The AI criticised hedonic calculus for not having any actual true numbers to be based on. But your own thing uses the same Hallucinated Numerals system of measurement. Your misdirectional blather changes nothing about this problem.