DefiningPleasure.ppt

Defining Pleasure for Hedonism: Lessons from Science Dan Turton Victoria University of Wellington Plan Theory Classical/Quantitative/Value/Default/ Benthamite/Old Skool Hedonism Felt-Quality, Hedonic Tone theory of pleasure Problem The heterogeneity problem Solution Pleasure feels good Scientific support for hedonic tone theories Classical Hedonism about Well-Being Well-being Pleasure is the only bearer of intrinsic value in a life Opposite for pain Pleasure and pain are sensations – they have a felt quality NOT ‘folk hedonism’ Felt-Quality Theories of Pleasure Distinctive Feeling theories Hedonic Tone theories Every feeling/sensation has a valence Positive, neutral or negative Which affects well-being correspondingly Improves, doesn’t change or worsens Note: the hedonic tone is felt/experienced The Heterogeneity Problem Henry Sidgwick (1907): There is no common ‘felt’ feature in diverse pleasurable experiences E.g. sex vs. schadenfraude So, Felt-Quality theories were largely abandoned The value was taken out of the sensation Attitudinal pleasures Motivational theories of pleasure Preference-satisfaction accounts The Kind of Solution Required Unify pleasure’s diversity Is useful for Hedonism Is obviously good in itself Is compatible with folk concept of pleasure Is compatible with best science Is useful for Hedonistic Utilitarianism Is theoretically measurable and inter-personally comparable Motivational Theories of Pleasure – (MTP) Sidgwick, Brandt, Alston, Carson Heathwood: A sensation is a sensory pleasure iff it is contemporaneously desired for its own sake But, not everything that is desired is a sensory pleasure Two problems 1) How do we distinguish between pleasures and non-pleasures? 2) No role for pleasure in explaining motivation!?! Feldman’s Attitudinal Pleasure Sensory pleasure = feeling “mmmmmm”/good Intrinsically worthless Attitudinal pleasure = being pleased about something/enjoying it The only thing of intrinsic value E.g. the happy accident victi