I just realized that some people object to hedonistic utilitarianism (which I’ve traditionally favored) on the grounds that “pleasure” and “suffering” are meaningless and ill-defined concepts, whereas I tend to find preference utilitarianism absurd on the grounds that “preference” is a meaningless and ill-defined concept.
This seems to point to a difference in how people’s motivational systems appear from the inside: maybe for some, “pleasure” is an obvious, atomic concept which they can constantly observe as driving their behavior, whereas others perceive their own actions as being driven more by something like a “preference” that seems like a coherent and obvious concept to them, and others still don’t feel that either of these concepts is particularly central, causing them to disregard utilitarianism. (Of course one may also reject utilitarianism for other reasons.)
This seems to point to a difference in how people’s motivational systems appear from the inside: maybe for some, “pleasure” is an obvious, atomic concept which they can constantly observe as driving their behavior,
Remembered pleasure and pleasure felt in the moment are two distinct things, towards which is the “obvious” one?
My immediate idea of the terms pleasure and suffering is that “pleasure” is an emotion while suffering is more of an activity. The opposite of “suffering” would for me be “enjoying”.
There a state where you laugh and a state of warm relaxation. Both feel good but both are different. How does pleasure relate to that?
Life satisfaction is another variable in that space.
There are interactions I might have with another person where the person is going to laugh and feel energy but where the person would answer “No” if I would ask them whether they want to engage in a certain action.
If you come from preference utilitarians it’s important to ensure consent. If you just care about hedonics and are skilled enough to predict the results of your action and know the actions produce pleasure, consent isn’t an issue anymore.
The difference matters if you analyse what some PUA people do.
I think “pleasure” and “suffering” are very meaningful and that the prospects of finding decent metrics for each are good over the long term. The problem I have with hedonistic utilitarianism is that hedons are not what I want to maximize. Don’t you ever pass up opportunities to do something you know will bring you more pleasure (even in the long run), in order to achieve some other value and don’t regret doing so?
I just realized that some people object to hedonistic utilitarianism (which I’ve traditionally favored) on the grounds that “pleasure” and “suffering” are meaningless and ill-defined concepts, whereas I tend to find preference utilitarianism absurd on the grounds that “preference” is a meaningless and ill-defined concept.
This seems to point to a difference in how people’s motivational systems appear from the inside: maybe for some, “pleasure” is an obvious, atomic concept which they can constantly observe as driving their behavior, whereas others perceive their own actions as being driven more by something like a “preference” that seems like a coherent and obvious concept to them, and others still don’t feel that either of these concepts is particularly central, causing them to disregard utilitarianism. (Of course one may also reject utilitarianism for other reasons.)
Interestingly, both concepts seem worthwhile to me… and I mostly advocate a combination of hedonistic and preference utilitarianism.
Remembered pleasure and pleasure felt in the moment are two distinct things, towards which is the “obvious” one?
My immediate idea of the terms pleasure and suffering is that “pleasure” is an emotion while suffering is more of an activity. The opposite of “suffering” would for me be “enjoying”.
There a state where you laugh and a state of warm relaxation. Both feel good but both are different. How does pleasure relate to that? Life satisfaction is another variable in that space.
There are interactions I might have with another person where the person is going to laugh and feel energy but where the person would answer “No” if I would ask them whether they want to engage in a certain action.
If you come from preference utilitarians it’s important to ensure consent. If you just care about hedonics and are skilled enough to predict the results of your action and know the actions produce pleasure, consent isn’t an issue anymore.
The difference matters if you analyse what some PUA people do.
I think “pleasure” and “suffering” are very meaningful and that the prospects of finding decent metrics for each are good over the long term. The problem I have with hedonistic utilitarianism is that hedons are not what I want to maximize. Don’t you ever pass up opportunities to do something you know will bring you more pleasure (even in the long run), in order to achieve some other value and don’t regret doing so?
Yeah, I’ve drifted away from hedonistic utilitarianism over time and don’t particularly want to try to defend it here.
Fair enough.