Talk:Hedonism

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)

I see what you are saying, but I'm not quite convinced. What I'm seeing from this article and a couple other resources like Merriam-Webster is that hedonism is a complete focus on the fun and thrills of life. It disregards all morals and instead seeks as much fun and as little pain and disappointment in the progress. Someone with poor judgement might just do something exciting and ignore the impending consequences, but this is more responsible thrill-seeking, since the consequences are thought out. However, this does not seem to involve the seeking of enjoyment for others. It is a purely selfish belief.

What I see from your response to this is that you are seeking the good of yourself and others. You would like everyone to enjoy themselves and avoid pain as much as possible, but which of the following is most important to you: God, others' well-being, responsibility, morals, or enjoyment. Of course a couple of those are similar, but I think a true Christian would answer "God" every time. If this or any of the other options other than "enjoyment" were your choice, then I don't think you can truly be a hedonist.

No one likes pain, and everyone like some enjoyment, but hedonism seems to be a selfish belief that this trumps all else. A Christian in some cases will accept pain because morals and God's decrees are more important to them. Whether they go through torture for their faith, or simple choose to give time and/or money to others, they are going against hedonist beliefs.

This is my understanding of the subject. Did I go wrong somewhere? --David B ^(TALK) 08:45, 19 July 2016 (EDT)

God is always first. I use hedonism as my system of ethics when faced with a moral choice and I can't find an answer in the Bible, which naturally is not that often. When doing so, I weigh the pain and pleasure of the other person as equal to my own, in accordance with the Golden Rule. Any exceptions to those personal guidelines have to have very good reasons behind them. For examples of going against the Bible, I would only steal from a store if I were starving and had literally NO other options. Similarly, I would kill a burglar in genuine self defense- in that case, all his future pain and pleasure is ended immediately, and if he's the sort of person to rob houses and doesn't mind carrying a gun to do it, he would've almost certainly caused more future pain than pleasure as a whole by being allowed to continue living. As for myself, I'm too busy doing the Lord's work to die. For other examples, have I euthanized a dying cat before? Of course- its continued existence is pain for it. Have been hungry and given food to someone who needs it more? Yes- the pleasure they receive outweighs the pain I suffer.

The common confusion about hedonism is that it did in fact begin as a very selfish, Pagan and wicked philosophy. That was a very long time ago however, and its meaning has changed since that ancient, Godless era. Selfish hedonism has been reclassified as egoism, something different entirely. I hope this clears things up. --Pious (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2016 (CDT)