쾌락주의 철학

쾌락주의는 윤리에서, 행위의 전체 이론에 대한 총칭하는 기준은 하나 또는 다른 종류의 즐거움이다. 이 단어는 그리스어 hedone ("쾌락"), hedys ("달콤한"또는 "쾌적한")에서 파생됩니다.

초창기부터 윤리 주의적 행동 이론이 열렸다. 그들은 단순한 오해, 즉 쾌락주의자가지지하는 즐거움이 본질적으로 순수하게 물리적이라는 가정 때문에 비평가들에 의해 정기적으로 오해되었다. 이 가정은 대부분의 경우 진실에 대한 완전한 왜곡입니다. 실제로 모든 쾌락 주의자들은 명성과 명성, 우정과 동정심, 지식과 예술에서 파생 된 즐거움의 존재를 인정합니다. 대부분의 사람들은 육체적 쾌락이 그 자체로 일시적 일뿐만 아니라 이전의 조건이나 결과로서, 그들이 지속되는 동안 가질 수있는 더 큰 강도를 할인하는 것과 같은 고통을 수반한다고 촉구했습니다.

초기의 가장 극단적 인 형태의 쾌락은 아리스 팁 푸스 (Aristippus)가 말한 바와 같이 사이클로 닉의 형태입니다. Protagoras가 유지됨에 따라 지식은 순간적인 감각에 불과하기 때문에 미래의 즐거움을 계산하고 그에 대한 고통의 균형을 맞추는 것은 쓸모가 없습니다. 진정한 삶의 예술은 매 순간 최대한 많은 즐거움을 모으는 것입니다.

No school has been more subject to the misconception noted above than the Epicurean. Epicureanism is completely different from Cyrenaicism. For Epicurus pleasure was indeed the supreme good, but his interpretation of this maxim was profoundly influenced by the Socratic doctrine of prudence and Aristotle’s conception of the best life. The true hedonist would aim at a life of enduring pleasure, but this would be obtainable only under the guidance of reason. Self-control in the choice and limitation of pleasures with a view to reducing pain to a minimum was indispensable. This view informed the Epicurean maxim “Of all this, the beginning, and the greatest good, is prudence.” This negative side of Epicureanism developed to such an extent that some members of the school found the ideal life rather in indifference to pain than in positive enjoyment.

In the late 18th century Jeremy Bentham revived hedonism both as a psychological and as a moral theory under the umbrella of utilitarianism. Individuals have no goal other than the greatest pleasure, thus each person ought to pursue the greatest pleasure. It would seem to follow that each person inevitably always does what he or she ought. Bentham sought the solution to this paradox on different occasions in two incompatible directions. Sometimes he says that the act which one does is the act which one thinks will give the most pleasure, whereas the act which one ought to do is the act which really will provide the most pleasure. In short, calculation is salvation, while sin is shortsightedness. Alternatively he suggests that the act which one does is that which will give one the most pleasure, whereas the act one ought to do is that which will give all those affected by it the most pleasure.

The psychological doctrine that a human’s only aim is pleasure was effectively attacked by Joseph Butler. He pointed out that each desire has its own specific object and that pleasure comes as a welcome addition or bonus when the desire achieves its object. Hence the paradox that the best way to get pleasure is to forget it and to pursue wholeheartedly other objects. Butler, however, went too far in maintaining that pleasure cannot be pursued as an end. Normally, indeed, when one is hungry or curious or lonely, there is desire to eat, to know, or to have company. These are not desires for pleasure. One can also eat sweets when one is not hungry, for the sake of the pleasure that they give.

Moral hedonism has been attacked since Socrates, though moralists sometimes have gone to the extreme of holding that humans never have a duty to bring about pleasure. It may seem odd to say that a human has a duty to pursue pleasure, but the pleasures of others certainly seem to count among the factors relevant in making a moral decision. One particular criticism which may be added to those usually urged against hedonists is that whereas they claim to simplify ethical problems by introducing a single standard, namely pleasure, in fact they have a double standard. As Bentham said, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” Hedonists tend to treat pleasure and pain as if they were, like heat and cold, degrees on a single scale, when they are really different in kind.