10 Hedonism
Value Theory
Value theory is a critical area of philosophy that serves to evaluate the consequences of actions and to discern whether things are good or bad. It distinguishes between intrinsic value, which refers to the value something has in itself, and extrinsic value, which pertains to the value derived from its relation to other things or its consequences.
General Form of a Theory of Value
A robust theory of value includes three essential components:
Identification of Intrinsic Value: Recognizing which things are intrinsically valuable.
Measurement of Intrinsic Value: Establishing criteria or methods for assessing the intrinsic value of these identified things.
Determination of Complex Values: Explaining how the intrinsic value of more complex entities (such as lives or consequences) is calculated based on their components.
A Foolish Theory of Value
One flawed concept posits that possessing consumer goods is inherently good and defines intrinsic value strictly through the retail price of goods. In this view, the worth of complex elements like life can be calculated by summing the intrinsic values of all consumer goods one possesses, which oversimplifies value assessment.
Mill’s Theory of Value
John Stuart Mill presents a theory of value influenced by ancient Greek thought and the ideas of Jeremy Bentham. Mill proposes that happiness equates to pleasure and the absence of pain, while unhappiness is related to pain and deprivation of pleasure. These definitions position pleasure as the only intrinsic good and pain as the sole intrinsic bad.
Some Assumptions about Pleasures and Pains
To evaluate pleasures and pains effectively, Mill assumes:
Pleasures and pains are subjective feelings, akin to sensory experiences.
Each experience has a specific duration.
Both the intensity of an experience and the ability to compare experiences among different individuals are vital for evaluation.
Evaluating Pleasures: Bentham’s Perspective
According to Bentham, the intrinsic value of a pleasure episode can be calculated with the following formula: [ e = \text{Intensity}(e) \times \text{Duration}(e) \times \text{Probability}(e) \times \text{Remoteness}(e) ] This approach emphasizes a quantitative analysis of experiences.
Simple Sensory Hedonism (SSH)
Simple Sensory Hedonism encapsulates the idea that:
The intrinsic value of a pleasure is given by its intensity and duration: [ e = \text{intensity}(e) \times \text{duration}(e) ]
Conversely, the intrinsic value of pain is negative, reflecting its harmful nature: [ e = - (\text{intensity}(e) \times \text{duration}(e)) ]
The overall value of a consequence is derived from the summation of individual pleasure and pain values.
Objections to Simple Sensory Hedonism
A key objection to SSH argues that if it were true, it would mean a life like that of an individual named Porky would be considered exceedingly good, which contradicts our general understanding of a good life. Hence, this implies that SSH is flawed.
Mill’s Response to SSH
In response, Mill contends that human beings possess higher faculties than mere animal pleasures. Once people become aware of these faculties, their definition of happiness expands beyond simple satisfaction. He asserts that some pleasures are qualitatively more valuable than others, arguing:
It is preferable to be a dissatisfied person of intellect than a satisfied fool. This qualitative perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of pleasure and value.
Mill’s Qualified Hedonism
Mill refines the concept of intrinsic value:
For pleasure: [ e = \text{intensity}(e) \times \text{duration}(e) \times \text{quality}(e) ]
For pain: [ e = - (\text{intensity}(e) \times \text{duration}(e)) ]
The total intrinsic value of any consequence is still the sum of the intrinsic values of all related episodes of pleasure and pain.
Who Decides Quality of Pleasures?
Mill posits that distinguishing between qualitative pleasures is based upon the experiences of individuals. A pleasure that is preferred by almost everyone who has experienced both should be considered the more desirable one. This emphasis on experienced preference serves as a guide in evaluating value qualitatively.