Do you believe in psychological hedonism/egoism? Any philosophers on this?

You'll find that most here agree with you, and that Emily Austin agrees and talks about this in chapter 4 of her book "Living for Pleasure" under the title "Natural Hedonism.

Quote from wbernys

I'm become more interested in psychological hedonism (the thesis that all human actions are due to avoiding pain and increasing pleasure) and curious your guys thoughts on it.

Mark Twain makes the same argument in his "What Is Man" as well.

Epicurus has a very expansive view of pleasure that goes far beyond just physical stimulation, and yes that definitely plays into the idea that everyone acts for what they perceive to be their best interests.

My own view of employing the psychological hedonism argument in this context is that while there is a lot of merit depending on how it is presented (as Twain does), I don't find it particularly useful on the deeper and more important point of decided what the word "pleasure' really should be held to mean. it's one thing to say that every in truth acts for what they think will bring them the best result, but how that result correlates to "pleasure" is really the issue, and saying that "everyone does it" doesn't really help with that, at least from my point of view. All the other lemmings may be jumping off the cliff, but observing that everyone is doing it doesn't really help me decide that I should follow that path myself.

At first thought I think that Dr. Austin touches on the subject (maybe repeatedly) but I don't think there is a chapter devoted to it.

For that I would recommend the DeWitt book, which treats it extensively, but equally or more so I would recommend the article "Epicurus' Refutation of Determinism" by Dr. David Sedley. i think we have it here or it's readily available on Academia -- if you can't find it let us know!

When examples are stated that hedonism leads to „bad“ outcomes, this „bad“ is instead the proof for hedonism. Because all value judgements are based on feelings. And prudent hedonists choose more good than bad outcomes / consequences.

Examples for hedonist defenders:

I dislike it when other people speculate about my motives in an attempt to prove a point, and I try--not always successfully--to refrain from doing this myself.

"You only left Christianity because you were hurt by people at church...You only deny God because you want to justify a life of sin...You only act morally because God's laws are written on your heart..."

Well, no. If they really wanted to know the answers to these questions, they could always ask. Be curious, as the man says:

Edit; yeesh, I forgot there's some strong language in that clip!

I generally don't discuss hedonism with adults, but my children are wonderful little hedonistic philosophers, especially with the sort of body-focused ethics that they are taught in their school.

My daughter (7 years old) came up with an interesting insight I had not yet considered on the usual subject of sweets. I was describing that the belly gets a bad rapport because people associate it with overeating or eating too many unhealthy things; BUT our stomach can guide us in all sorts of other things besides being hungry, such as moral conundrums, intuitions, danger and perhaps more; besides just whether or not we experience hunger. So therefore we should listen to our bellies about a lot of things. To which my daughter replied that it's actually our tastebuds we need to watch out for. This impressive (to me at least) technique or process of seperating out into various parts of the body the health and ill-health of eating lead us on an exploration of how the mouth can salivate and how that is a sign, often, that we are about to eat something that is both delicious and good for us as we don't seem to salivate when we are going to eat a treat (at least I don't). And that sometimes our minds are fickle things and that they too can be in cohoots with our taste buds in wanting to eat unhealthy treats all the time; but we've established our belly usually stays true to what we more often should choose and avoid.

All of this is to illustrate that a discussion of hedonism that is not discussing the range and diversity of sensations coming from various parts of the body isn't really a worthwhile approach to hedonistic thinking to me. One that gets stuck in neurochemical reductionism is tough to suss out as we do not experience this chemical bifurcation of object and subject in reasoning hedonistically from sensations, rather we experience everything embodied. Therefore a child trained in listening to their bodies has been, for me at least, a most worthy philosophical partner when it comes to the subject of hedonism as they have not been incultured to ignore their bodies.

And I'll end with this enormous statement by our Sage:

“The beginning and root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this”

I just see that I missed post #13 from Todd earlier..... seeing it now.

Quote from Don

According to Epicurus, ALL our actions, decisions, etc. ultimately end up as a pursuit of pleasure.

did you mean to include "should" there, as "should ultimately end up as..." Otherwise we get back into the "psychological hedonism" word play again, and I don't agree that Epicurus would say that we can't consciously choose to pursue pain, even knowing that it is not going to be pleasurable for us to do so.

But that's probably related to the current discussion.

I read Todd to be saying that Epicurus would say that a desire is "natural" if in fact it ends up producing more pleasure than pain. So that would be a "final consequence" test that you don't know whether the desire is natural or unnatural until all the consequences are added up in total.

And in that respect our state at birth would have no immediate relevance to whether a desire is natural or not.

Quote from Cassius

I read Todd to be saying that Epicurus would say that a desire is "natural" if in fact it ends up producing more pleasure than pain.

Not in fact. Only in expectation.

And I would say any classification of specific desires has to be taken as more or less of a generalization that (even in expectation) might differ for different people and in different circumstances.

Quote from Cassius

did you mean to include "should" there, as "should ultimately end up as..." Otherwise we get back into the "psychological hedonism" word play again, and I don't agree that Epicurus would say that we can't consciously choose to pursue pain, even knowing that it is not going to be pleasurable for us to do so.

I would agree that Epicurus says we can "consciously choose to pursue pain" but I don't necessarily agree about why someone would "consciously" do it. If someone is deliberately, "consciously" going to inflict pain on themselves or others, they're still doing it because it fills a need, a desire in themselves. Epicurus would say, I believe, they are trying to pursue their own path to pleasure, it feels right to them in the moment. All paths to pleasure are perceived as "good" but not all paths to pleasure should be pursued since they lead to an abundance of pain. We can "consciously" choose the pain of exercise or surgery but that pain leads to an abundance of pleasure in the end.

Quote from Don

Epicurus says we can "consciously choose to pursue pain"

The issue is pursuing pain as a means to greater pleasure vs pursuing pain as the telos.

I don't think there can be any disagreement that we can and do pursue pain as a means.

I'm not sure what Epicurus thought, but I think I agree with Don that no one actually pursues pain as their ultimate end. In all cases I believe it can be shown to be pleasure that is actually being pursued, no matter how misguided the means chosen.

Quote from Don

Epicurus would say, I believe, they are trying to pursue their own path to pleasure, it feels right to them in the moment.

That would be what I understand is meant by "psychological hedonism," but what statement of Epicurus would you cite to support your belief that he would say that?

Quote from Cassius

what statement of Epicurus would you cite to support your belief that he would say that?

Cicero seems to interpret the Epicureans as saying that (FWIW):

Quote from Torquatus

For no one either despises, or hates, or avoids pleasure itself merely because it is pleasure, but because great pains overtake those men who do not understand how to pursue pleasure in a reasonable manner. Nor is there any one who loves, or pursues, or wishes to acquire pain because it is pain, but because sometimes such occasions arise that a man attains to some great pleasure through labour and pain. For, to descend to trifles, who of us ever undertakes any laborious exertion of body except in order to gain some advantage by so doing?

Yes I was thinking of exactly that from Torquatus is what I would cite myself. But I am not at all sure that is what is meant.

Todd what is your view on the psychological hedonism question? My own views are not set in stone on this.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Epicurus would say, I believe, they are trying to pursue their own path to pleasure, it feels right to them in the moment.

That would be what I understand is meant by "psychological hedonism," but what statement of Epicurus would you cite to support your belief that he would say that?

I would have to dig in, but my first gut response is him stating pleasure is the telos, the goal, the summum bonum, the "that" to which everything points in the end. Not sometimes. Not should. Not in certain circumstances. You dig and question someone's decisions and actions long enough, it ends up to "I thought it would give me pleasure" it some variation on that.

Quote from Cassius

Todd what is your view on the psychological hedonism question?

If you're asking what I personally believe, then I agree with psychological hedonism.

To avoid misunderstanding, I would add that many (most?) people don't really pursue pleasure in a conscious way. They tell themselves they are pursuing something more "noble" or altruistic. Some honestly believe that, others just lying. But if you keep asking "why are you doing that?" enough times, eventually the honest answer will have to be some variation of, "I expect it to give me pleasure". There really is no other possibility that I can see.

If you are asking what I think Epicurus believed, I can't recall anywhere that he said this explicitly. But I think it fits - I would expect him to agree if we could ask him.

It was probably a more relevant argument once the Stoics were on the scene.

Quote from Todd

will have to be some variation of, "I expect it to give me pleasure".

What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face that that do what they do "Because they believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it gives me pleasure or not, and I know that often it won't."

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Todd

will have to be some variation of, "I expect it to give me pleasure".

What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face that that do what they do "Because they believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it gives me pleasure or not, and I know that often it won't."

I would say they're lying to themselves because they despise the idea of pleasure.

Quote from Don

I would say they're lying to themselves because they despise the idea of pleasure.

I see your logic in that, but this is where I lose the trail of why this is a productive theory to pursue or position to take.

Quote from Cassius

I see your logic in that, but this is where I lose the trail of why this is a productive theory to pursue or position to take.

Please clarify what it is when you said this is where you lose the trail of "why this is a productive theory or productive position to take."