Dialogue with a Hedonist
Part of an ongoing conversation.
I have been accused recently in this space of exaggerating the claims I make about the mental, moral and philosophical condition of the modern world, or the extremity of the emptiness.
As if perfectly to show how no exaggeration was made, now appears in my comments boxes comments that so perfectly follow, without deviation, the orthodoxy of the nihilist that I fear I might be accused of inventing them for my own purposes.
But, not so: the comments given below are unsolicited and written by hands other than mine, and, it is assumed, sincerely made by those who submit them for their value as true statements.
Here is a snip of recent dialog with first commenter, who rejoices in the somewhat Cucurbitaceaen name of Watermelonyo
I wrote:
“… there are addictions and sins and humiliations which produce much false and transient pleasure without occluding the health, but which are nonetheless self evidently moral wrongs.”
He replies:
It is far from self-evident to me that any pleasurable activities that do not occlude the health are morally wrong. This is what you must demonstrate for your argument to carry any weight. Declaring it self-evident doesn’t help you.
Let me in this place write a reply. The other points the writer raises must be answered at another time: this one, by itself, is so outrageous, and yet so easy to disprove and dismiss, as to merit taking some length to answer.
The doctrine that there is no moral properties to any human acts aside from those that physical harm to others or to oneself is called Hedonism.
Hedonism is not Epicureanism, which is a more noble philosophy claiming the good life consists of discovering those things which are true rather than false pleasures.
Epicureanism says fortitude, moderation, temperance and justice are the source of true pleasure, and needed to live a life free from turmoil and the pain that comes from immoderate pleasure seeking. To the contrary Hedonism says pleasure seeking is good, whether immoderate or no, provided it works no physical harm.
I submit, dear readers, that it is self evident that this is so: because it is something everyone believes, whether he admits it or not, knows it or not.
To prove my case, I call you, whoever is reading these words, to the witness stand, and ask you to raise your hand, and to answer the fallowing questions, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.
Do you honestly believe that anything which causes no physical harm to oneself or others is never a matter for moral contemplation, nor an issue where any moral concepts are involved in discussing the pros and cons? Never, with no exceptions of any kind, not even one? Let is consider some examples:
1. Suppose, for example, that a man made a promise to his mother on her deathbed, and swore with all solemnity, but under such circumstances that there are no witnesses, and no person who will be presently harmed, or even disappointed, should he break the oath.
If we were to discuss whether or not it is licit or illicit for him to break the oath, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, concepts like honesty and keeping one’s word or concepts like the conditions that justify breaking one’s word?
I am not here asking whether this man in this case is right or wrong. I am asking whether he confronts a moral decision as opposed to a health decision when he decides his course of action.
2. Suppose, for example, that as a prank someone phoned your wife or mother and told her to come to the emergency room immediately, as you had been severely wounded and were soon to die. The upset causes no physical damage, nothing but psychological distress.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as the concept of malice or dishonesty or the intentional infliction of emotional distress?
3. Suppose, for example, that out of malice a man went to the various suppliers and customers of your business, and told scandalous and sensational lies about you, under such circumstances that it was likely that he was to be believed, and, no matter what you said, you were likely to lose your reputation and the goodwill of the community, lose your customers and suppliers, and perhaps be driven out of business. No physical harm has been done to you. The loss of money to you is not due to theft or robbery in the precise legal meaning of those terms.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as the concepts of slander and honesty and honor and loss?
4. Suppose that you were to have sexual relations both with your mother and with your sister and your grown adult daughter, but under such circumstances as no pregnancy of a genetically defective child is likely or possible.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as the concept of incest and chastity, self control and decency?
5. Suppose you were to discover that the beloved man of a woman you dislike had just died, but that his body was not properly disposed of. The body is not, in the technical legal sense, the property of the widow, in that it is not personalty she can alienate or use or exploit however she so wishes.
As a prank, you enter the morgue or autopsy room where the body is kept, slice off the male member, or various organs, disfigure the face with a knife, and cook and eat the various body part, making sure to video tape the whole affair from start to finish. You release the tape on YouTube, and send a copy once an hour every hour to his teenaged and mentally retarded daughter, who, in the extremity of her grief attempts suicide. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the dead body is properly sterilized before consumption so that no diseases, such a Kuru, are likely to afflict you.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as the concept of trespass, cruelty, or mishandling a corpse?
6. Suppose you discovered a drug which produced enduring pleasure, but it unfortunately induced a harmless but permanent state of psychosis, such that you were never able after to tell the difference between true and false, waking and dreaming. However, no physical wounds are caused, no bleeding, and you merely become a burden to the society around you, or your loved once, who are charged with caring for your wellbeing.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as the concept of the duty to care for oneself, or the innate value of human sanity?
7. Suppose you discovered a drug which produced enduring pleasure, and had no ill side effect at all, but the pleasure is such that you quit your career as a brain surgeon saving lives and a physicist discovering safe and clean infinite sources of energy, and a concert pianist bringing sublime transports of joy to the lives of countless fans, but instead determined you would prefer to live on the island of lotos-eaters, doped happily (but quite healthily!) to the gills, never producing a single thing ever again in your life of any value to anyone.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as temperance and prudence and the duty to use your gifts for the benefit of man?
8. Suppose you inherited a valuable mansion of considerable historical interest and worth, set amid a stand of ancient trees atop hills rich with coal and uranium. Daily, hundreds of visitors come by to tour the mansion and walk the beautiful grounds. Consulting your lawyers, you discover that there is no prohibition in this jurisdiction, nor is any licenses needed, for you to level the mansion and strip mine the hills, denuding them of lumber, which you could sell at a profit, but you prefer to burn in huge piles merely for the delight of it.
Your wife is pregnant, but as yet you have no heirs apparent, and no particular person for whom you are legally obligated to keep the land intact and preserve its value.
You set about to despoil the land, doing things that will surely turn it into an eyesore and a worthless lot of property.
Inside the mansion are rare and irreplaceable works of art and antiques which you determined to burn, destroying their beauty and legacy forevermore. They are unambiguously your property, and you are legally within your rights.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as concepts like thrift and honoring the generations unborn, or honoring the wishes of the general community, or the antiquarian and scientific and artistic interest in irreplaceable things of beauty and value.
9. Suppose you conceive a hatred of black men in your heart, and determined to spend your days, quite peacefully, and without causing any physical harm to any others, and well within your constitutional rights, urging your fellow men in speeches and in print to hate, fear, loath, mock, despise, harass, and murder blacks in the name of Aryan Supremacy.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as brotherly love and racial hatred and the dignity of the human person?
10. Suppose you had a magical amulet or a science fictional ray that could rob a man or woman of his free will, and reduce him to your obedient and loving slave, willing and eager to obey your every command without any demur or thought of reluctance. The magical ray does no physical harm whatever to the victim. It does not hurt the brain nor cause cancer.
You are debating in your mind whether to use the ray on a criminal to reform him, on your mother to get her to stop nagging you, and on the sweetheart who rejected your advances whom you now would like to marry. Then you are thinking of using it on the voters of your nation to see to it that their political decisions are wise and just.
If we were to discuss the matter, would we discuss the health consequences and the physical injuries to others, or would we discuss concepts which only have meaning in the context of a moral code, such as the dignity of the human free will, or the desirability of allowing slaves to be free, even from a slavery that causes no physical harm?
———————-
I now ask the witness to depart the witness stand and enter the jury box.
While in the jury box, please, please, please do not argue the merits or demerits of the examples used here. I am not making that claim that one thing or the other is right or wrong in the circumstances listed.
I am only asking the jury whether the discussion about the issue raised is or is not a discussion about health and physical well being.
With that in mind, look over the answers you just gave.
If you answered as single question of the nine listed above in the affirmative, then you have identified at least one area where some act is both morally impermissible and at the same time does not effect physical health and wellbeing.
If there is at least one thing that is both a moral question and not a health question, then the assertion that goodness is merely whatever is pleasant and does not adversely afflict the health or self or others is a false assertion.
If not one or two, but each and every witness, and every human being on earth, answers in the same way, then we are discussing a fact known to one and all.
No fact can be known to one and all that is not self evident. This is what the word “self-evident” means.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
