Hedonism is the view that pleasure, happiness, is the ultimate goal in life. Rand said, through one of Galt’s speeches, that the achievement of one’s own happiness is one’s highest moral purpose. However, Rand denounces hedonism as a doctrine which makes pleasure the standard rather than the purpose of ethics. The standard, she says, is one’s life, and happiness is the consequence of living successfully. Still, in “the Objectivist Ethics, VOS, 24; pb 28, the statement is made that the maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. “To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement.”
When Rand denounces hedonism, she seems concerned that making pleasure, or happiness, the primary guide to action, would negate rationally chosen values. Actions would be guided by emotional wishes and whims rather than reason. Some people may think happiness is being high on drugs all day or avoiding responsibility and beng unproductive, drinking and being merry today without concern for tomorrow. This is a popular vision of hedonism.
There are more sophisticated versions of hedonism. Utilitarianism is hedonistically driven, but it has rational criteria for measuring degrees of pleasure. However, Rand and Peikoff also denounce utilitarianism because of the catch-phrase associated with it; “Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.” It conflicts with the egoism of objectivism. Yes, under this justification, one can murder a miser to distribute his or her wealth to the majority. This is condemnable.
There are more positive aspects of utilitarianism. There are aspects the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill which can be assets to objectivism and rational egoism. Bentham’s hedonistic calculus allows us to compare and measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity. Yes, there is another criterion, extension, but this is where it gets to the greatest good for the greatest number. We can avoid that simply by eliminating this criterion.
Mill also adds an important criterion, that of quality. Yes, according to Robert Pirsig, “quality” is hard to define, but Mill demonstrated that wisdom can be a qualitative value. He said that he would rather be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool, and rational people would overwhelmingly agree. The fools who would disagree would be limited by their perspectives as fools. I think the same reasoning can be applied to qualitative values such as honor and authenticity. I would rather overcome obstacles and achieve goals honestly than cheat and only make people think I achieved goals or be on drugs all day, only thinking that I am successful. Most rational people would rather live life authentically, in real life, than as brains in a vat. It’s a qualitative value.
Using all these criteria for measuring happiness, the rational egoist would, if he or she had a choice, choose to live in a moral community and be moral within it. It would be in his or her rational self-interest to do so. It would be preferable to win a race honestly rather than cheat and simply make people think one won. It would be preferable to endure the pain of the dentist drill than the pain of the future tooth ache. It would be preferable, in the long run, to tear myself away from my television to attend college classes and work for the happiness of graduating and getting a good job as a result. It would be preferable, more in the rational egoist’s interest, to achieve goals on his or her own and not by being a predator.
There is the problem of the “prisoner’s dilemma.” If two prisoner’s are planning a prison break, it would be to each prisoner’s advantage to turn the other in. What would the rational egoist do? Many decisions in real life can be compared to the prisoner’s dilemma. If a rational egoist moves into a capitalist community where neighbors purchase private fire protection, should he or she allow his or her neighbor to bear the burden, knowing the fire department will put out fires which threaten the protected house?
Also, if about twenty Objectivists are in an airplane crash on a deserted island and have to set up a just society on their own, how would they determine who owns what property and who gets to be the enforcer and protector of property rights? If someone discovers a fresh water source, does he or she get to claim it and sell water to everybody else? Do people just run out to grab whatever they can? How does one set up a capitalistic society without initiating force against others?
I’d like to hear how Objectivists reading this post would handle these problems
Bis bald,
Nick
|
