Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hedonism"
(Hedonism is wildly misconstrued) |
m (Forgot to sign my post) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
-will a theoretical failure to repeal Obamacare be immoral? Yes, because it clearly causes more pain than pleasure across the entire nation. | -will a theoretical failure to repeal Obamacare be immoral? Yes, because it clearly causes more pain than pleasure across the entire nation. | ||
| − | In summary, I believe that my choice of ethics is widely misconstrued and can be consistent with devout Christianity. I think Epicurus poisoned the well, so to speak, by being both the most famous example of a hedonist, an atheist, and a deviant all at the same time. | + | In summary, I believe that my choice of ethics is widely misconstrued and can be consistent with devout Christianity. I think Epicurus poisoned the well, so to speak, by being both the most famous example of a hedonist, an atheist, and a deviant all at the same time. --Pious 22:52, 18 July 2016 (CDT) |
Revision as of 03:53, July 19, 2016
A respectful disagreement with this page
I consider myself to be an extremely devout Christian hedonist. I know this sounds paradoxical, but hear me out.
As defined in the first line of the article, hedonism is made out to be that which is actually egoism, and even worse, perhaps that which is practiced by libertines. This is not true at all. What hedonism is about is the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain, for both oneself and others. That is moral. Conversely, causing pain and the prevention of the pleasure of others is immoral. I personally weigh others before myself by default when making moral decisions, as did Christ in the most important decision of them all- His sacrifice for all of us. However, if I know that the specific other(s) is(are) wicked, I place myself before them. If unsure, I consider the other person(s) and I as equals while trying to gain more knowledge. You can basically replace the words pleasure and pain with right and wrong, respectively, and still end up with the same principles.
Obviously, nearly everything outlined as sin in the Bible is automatically immoral because it pains God. That covers the majority of ethical dilemmas for me, but I've found myself in question due to a few conflicts. Examples are as follows:
-was it immoral to murder Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? The act of doing so prevented a great deal of human suffering, so I think not.
-is killing a stranger who killed a relative of yours immoral? You would have no way of knowing whether they would repent and do good in the future, so I think no- simply let the police handle it.
-is violently avenging a rapist immoral? That depends. If there's strong evidence that he will cause a great deal of pain from your inaction by continuing to rape in the future, and the police will do nothing to stop him, yes. If it's a once-off, no.
-is stealing food to feed your starving family immoral? No if your pain is eased and theirs is unaffected due to being rich, yes if they needed that food just as badly as you and yours.
-is abortion immoral? It causes nothing but pain, so yes.
-is gay conversion therapy immoral? The subject of said therapy will have an opportunity to be saved, so no, it is very moral.
-is atheism immoral? Of course, since atheists are choosing to be damned.
-is liberalism immoral? Again of course, since enacting their ideals into law causes far more pain than pleasure (if any).
-will a theoretical failure to repeal Obamacare be immoral? Yes, because it clearly causes more pain than pleasure across the entire nation.
In summary, I believe that my choice of ethics is widely misconstrued and can be consistent with devout Christianity. I think Epicurus poisoned the well, so to speak, by being both the most famous example of a hedonist, an atheist, and a deviant all at the same time. --Pious 22:52, 18 July 2016 (CDT)
