 Hello everyone. Today, we are going to talk about hedonism. This is the second part of our introduction to ethical theories. Now, we have talked about consequentialism. We have talked about consequentialism as the domain in which moral character of an action is judged by the consequences that the action achieves. Now, in the talk of consequentialism, we have shifted moral judgment from the act to the consequences it attains. But notice, we have not talked about what are these kinds of consequences. What is it that describes these consequences? Now, to describe these consequences is the job of a moral theory. So, this consequence is what would rightly be called as good, that any act is in the pursuit of what is good. But the question comes to be that what is this good? Good within quotation marks. Now, attaining the good as I read is a part of consequentialism that is an action. Attaining the good is a part of consequentialism that is an action is right if the consequences aimed or achieved are good. Now, are we substituting consequences with good? But is this explaining what consequences what good is? Hedonism is a theory which tries to answer this question that what is the nature of good? So, it is explaining or defining what is the good. And I put it within inverted commas because it talks about the concept good. Now, but then what is the content of this good or what is the description of this good? Hedonism proposes an answer to this question. It says that the good is that pleasure is the good. The true goal of every living being and what everyone ought to aim at. Now, as we see, hedonism talks about the true goal of every living being and what everyone ought to aim at. The key word here to remember is pleasure. Now, is pleasure the same thing as good? Now, the hedonist claim is that attaining pleasure or happiness. There may be a difference between the two, but for the moment let us assume them in the same bracket. That attaining pleasure or happiness is what we are naturally equipped with and this is our aim. Now, what are pleasures? Now, pleasures or happiness seems to be a natural phenomena that we are equipped with. The ability to feel or no pleasures is almost introspective. And hedonism goes ahead to claim that well, this immediate implicit knowledge of what is pleasurable or what is happiness inducing either in the short run or the long run is what ought to be the parameter for determining what is good. Now, the text referred is William Francona and on the page 84 he brings about some contentions about pleasures. I read, only pleasures are intrinsically good or whatever is pleasant in itself is good in itself. A hedonist may admit that some pleasures are morally bad or wrong or that some are bad because of their results. Now, this is to be noted. Only pleasures are intrinsically good or whatever is pleasant in itself is good in itself. A hedonist may admit that some pleasures are morally bad or wrong or that some are bad because of their results. Now, this is a contention of as put out by Francona. Now, the gist of which is saying that pleasure or happiness is the final standard, the desired final or perpetual consequence. Now, is pleasure the final standard? What is hedonism saying? Hedonism is trying to put forth that well, if we have the ability, the natural ability to know when we are happy about something or when we are not happy about something. This is a natural index which we are equipped with and this natural index is the foundation of moral judgment. This natural index will decide what is right or what is wrong. So, what the hedonist is saying is trying to bring about the relation between two notions, two notions which are good and happiness or pleasure. Now, what is the relation that is going to be between these two notions, good and happiness and pleasure? Now, whether it is that of equivalence or of definition or it is not equivalent, that is what is to be determined. Now, the hedonist says that well, whatever is good is pleasurable and whatever is pleasurable is good. So, in a way there is a relation between the two in that anything that is to be termed as good has to be pleasurable and anything that is pleasurable has to be a part of the domain good. So, there is a kind of interactive relation between the two, between good and happiness and pleasure. So, anything that is good, anything that is good is also pleasurable, anything that is pleasurable is also good. So, now, standing of these two claims, one and two and that they are almost being able to be interchange vice versa, this brings about a kind of definition to good. However, the hedonist stops short of defining the good as that which brings happiness, but this brings such a strong correlation that it is almost of an equivalence. Now, if the hedonist is true, what the hedonist is saying that there cannot be something which is good and is not pleasurable in short or long run. So, this is the essential claim that there cannot be something which is good and is not pleasurable in the short or long run. Now, this is the claim of the hedonist that everything that is that happiness is the final standard that we can, by which we can judge things to be good or consequences or moral acts to be good. Now, keep in mind that next theory that we talk about is utilitarianism and utilitarianism also subscribes to hedonism, where it claims that well happiness is pursued. Notice, we are not talking about the domain of the agent that happiness for whom, for how many happiness in the short run or in the long run or happiness over vis-a-vis pleasure or satisfaction. So, these are broader areas, but what now as a student of hedonism we need to know is that it talks about our natural ability to have a preferential hierarchy between what may be broadly termed as happiness, pleasure, satisfaction and what we morally call good. Now, getting a relation between these two is the ethos of the hedonist claim. Now, let us read what is on the slide. Pleasantness is the criteria of intrinsic goodness. It is what makes things good as ends. It is not just a coincidence that what is pleasant is good in itself and vice versa. This is again from our textbook. Now, what is this claim saying? It is saying that pleasantness is the criteria of intrinsic goodness. Intrinsic goodness meaning valuable in itself. It is what makes things good as ends. It is not just a coincidence that what is pleasant is good in itself and vice versa. So, here Frank Enna's version of hedonism is claiming that what is pleasant is good in itself and vice versa. That means, there can be nothing that which is not good and yet pleasant. So, what is this fundamental claim denying? It is denying one good, but not pleasurable and two pleasurable, but not good. So, it is trying to claim that well, it is denying that there can be nothing which can be termed good, but is not pleasurable and nothing can be termed pleasurable or pleasant as in the archaic language used which is pleasant or pleasurable and yet not good either in the short run or the long run. So, our ability to have to distinguish between natural, our natural ability to distinguish between happiness and pain is also our ability to distinguish between what is good and what is not good. Now, as we put up in the last sentence that there can be nothing which can be regarded as good and is neither pleasant by itself or in the consequence it brings about. So, for anything to be good, it has to be either pleasant by itself or it has to bring about pleasantness. So, only with these two characteristics can something be called good. So, therefore, there can be nothing which is good, but not pleasurable. Now, a few questions that we need to tackle that we have talked about the domain of pleasures. We have talked about pleasures and many of you would be wondering right now that I have loosely or used pleasure, happiness, pleasant satisfaction interchangeably. Now, this is for a reason because the hedonist what you might have got an impression is particularly the indulgent pleasure seeker, but hedonism as a philosophical principle is just claiming happiness. Now, that happiness can be interpreted in terms of satisfaction can be interpreted in terms of pleasure. So, giving it a wider domain that well some pleasures can fall in the domain of satisfaction, some pleasures can fall in the domain of happiness, some are downright pleasures. So, what about making a category or what about making a different scale of valuation for different pleasures as we see here that the question that we ask is are all pleasures of the same value right. How can we grade pleasures? Now, using the term happiness is rather ambiguous because it gives a scope of a lot of interpretation right. Now, as the hedonist is the creature of the senses that is not in a derogatory fashion being the creature of the senses. The hedonist is actually saying that our sensory apparatus enables us to distinguish between happy or a pleasant state of affairs from an unpleasant state of affairs and that becomes our parameter to distinguish from a good state of affairs to a and a not good or a bad state of affairs right. Now, how can pleasures be graded? Now, this you might like to know and perhaps those who would like to explore hedonism in greater detail can take the talks of or can go ahead with these leads that we will come across right now. So, coming to the slide there is broadly classification between quantitative and qualitative hedonists, quantitative and qualitative hedonists. Quantitative hedonists like Bentham maintain that the goodness of an activity is proportional to the quantity of pleasure it contains. But our question is can pleasure be quantified? When Bentham is making a claim that a goodness of an activity is proportional to the quantity of the pleasure it contains. But Bentham tried to work about a quantification of pleasure but it does not have to be such a systematic calculation. Consider it this way giving the benefit of doubt to or trying to make an empathetic understanding of the hedonist, the quantitative hedonist. Look at it this way suppose as a governmental body one has to decide between electrifying a village and providing portable water to another village, providing portable water to a village is higher in bringing about general state of happiness or providing electricity is more important in getting a better state of happiness. So, it is this kind of a calculation that Bentham would talk about that there is a gradation it does not have to be very accurately numerical it also includes people have tried to bring a very numerical attached numbers to pleasures. But by quantitative it is meant that we make distinctions or gradations in the amount of pleasure that can be contained in it. Now, the second pleasure second qualification that is talked about is qualitative hedonists. Now, the mill is one such hedonist, qualitative hedonists hold that pleasures differ in kind or quality. For example, pleasures differ in kind or quality. For example, the mental pleasures may exceed in value to physical pleasures. So, mill was a more refined hedonist, mills claim starts out to be that well pleasures can be qualified into either physical mental whether it can be various classifications. And therefore, the it is not just in the quantity of pleasure that we can make gradations, but there are also kinds of pleasures. Now, the kind of pleasure would determine what kind of hierarchy we set about it. Now, let us encounter another classification of hedonism between which is psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Now, psychological hedonism is a descriptive doctrine that is, it describes a state of affair. Whereas, the ethical hedonism prescribes a course of action or an ideal or normative state of affair. Now, let me read psychological hedonism is claiming that well it is human nature to seek pleasure and avoid plain fairly simple. Ethical hedonism on the other hand reads humans ought to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Now, the difference between the two is in the word ought. This is a state of is a description, this is a prescription. Psychological hedonism describes the way things are. It is a descriptive thesis and ethical hedonism is a prescriptive thesis. It prescribes the way things should be, it is a normative thesis. Now, some things you might like to know that if ethical hedonism is true, therefore, it implies that psychological hedonism also becomes a true. Ethical hedonism true, psychological hedonism becomes true, but psychological hedonism being true does not mean that ethical hedonism is true. So, psychological hedonism is just a description of state of affairs whereas, ethical hedonism is a prescription, how things ought to be. Now, having said this, let us see what is or what could be the problem with hedonism. Now, people like Moore, G. E. Moore a famous philosopher have argued that the hedonists make an illegitimate inference from this is the premise to the conclusion. From the premise that pleasure and pleasure alone is desired as an end to that pleasure and pleasure alone is good. So, from what is desired to becoming what is good is this legitimate. Now, again this again leads from the normative descriptive claim that we talked about. Now, if we see that well pleasure is we seek pleasure naturally that is a factual state of affairs. Now, are seeking pleasure naturally does it become also that we ought to seek pleasure that is where the illegitimate inference difference is brought to light by G. E. Moore that hedonists make an illegitimate jump from what is the case to what ought to be the case. So, what is desired as an end and what is desired as an end and what is good they cannot be linked or there is no reason to see why one leads to the other. Now, there are some more issues that we need to talk about that let us let me let me give you an example. Let me give you an example let us talk about it let us do a thought experiment. Let us assume that there is a hedon machine as philosopher has conjectured that or let us say that we have something called virtual reality and that we are plugged into a virtual reality machine having all the pleasures or having the sensation of all the pleasures that we want and our bodies are on a life support system and they survive and our life continues to be the string of pleasures that they are. Now, this seems to be a tricky situation are we going to be as happy as we think we would be would you like to sit or be plugged into this virtual reality machine you could have all the pleasures that you would require, but would you call the life a happy life because it brings forth a deeper question a question that is a comfortable life and a meaningful life what is the relation between these two. Now, pleasure is when you are plugged into the virtual reality machine you have all the sensations and the pleasures that you would require, but on a cumulative effect does this lead to a happier state of affairs. Many of you would be appalled by the idea of this virtual reality machine and you would not consider being plugged into that machine at least not for life whereas there is something that is preventing you from feeling this as the measure of happiness. Now, those who are thinking that well this machine I do not want to be plugged into this virtual reality machine are implicitly non hedonists that is they to them it is clear that somebody who does something what he thinks is morally or ethically right has a certain sense of satisfaction a certain sense of happiness or accomplishment for that say why does Mother Teresa if I ask Mother Teresa that why have you been sacrificing your comfortable life and working so hard and giving up pleasures to serve the poor our country India is full of examples of such such people, but then what would Mother Teresa or any other saint in this matter reply that do I do it for the happiness I seek or as we have written here that the pleasure or the happiness or the satisfaction that we get is an accompaniment or a side effect or a byproduct. Now, let us read what is written on the slide pleasure as an accompaniment or side effect or a byproduct of our objectives and not the objective itself. Now, why this idea of being plugged into a virtual reality machine seems to be appalling to many it is because we are not targeting the happiness perhaps or the pleasure that comes along or even the cumulative satisfaction that comes along we need to do the what is good not because it brings out along satisfaction, but because it is good and satisfaction comes along with it. Now, this is the kind of an argument that the non hedonist would make that the hedonist stands falsified when he claims that all that we do is because it gets a satisfaction and only those things that get a satisfaction are things that can be called good. So, is good the second question that we come up is good the desired consequence or does the desired consequence become a good. Now, I will leave this question to you as an audience that is what we desire does it make something good that something is desired x is desired therefore, x is good or x is good because x is desired. Now, if your answer is latter that is x is good and therefore, it is desired then you are a non hedonist, but if your claim is that x is desired and therefore, x is good then that is an hedonistic claim. So, hedonism is an essential is an interesting and primary mode or impulse in human behavior that when it tries to naturalize human behavior to how we are equipped to go across life that our choices of our ability as sentient creatures to prefer pleasure over pain to prefer pleasure and to shun pain is a natural part of us and that is what should be perhaps the basis of a moral theory that any act is moral or only if it brings about the satisfaction the utilitarian takes it further says that well it increases the number of agents that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number we will be talking about that theory next. So, the hedonist in essence is making one hierarchy clear that we prefer pleasure over pain and this alone is the fundamental for making a moral judgment or making an ethical claim. Now, the hedonist therefore, can denies that there can be anything that is which is can be called good and is neither pleasurable in the short run nor in the long run. So, with this we come to an end of the topic of hedonism which is a fundamental moral ethos in most traditions be it the Charvakas in the Indian philosophical tradition or the Epicureans in Greek tradition. So, this is a very fundamental drive where it is trying to naturalize human beings into the creatures that they are and also as a rebellion to the extraordinary tenets of morality perhaps founded on religion which constantly restrict the natural preference order of human beings.