/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11992962]

Are all moral systems inherently egoist?
We get a satisfaction from adhering to our principles that's deeper than the alternative - and the reason people aren't moral is when that satisfaction doesn't measure up.
The argument that people act moral while disregarding potential sources of happiness, don't realise that the acknowledgement of it's shallowness/immorality prevent the happiness they would otherwise get from it, and acting moral allows them to feel that satisfaction.
Hedonism still explains each system because the ultimate motivation ultimately drives everything.

[Anonymous No.11992966]

No you fucking tard.


We get pleasure from a whole lot of things that are banned in most moral systems.

[Anonymous No.11992969]

>>11992962
All moral systems are systemically false.
Sure.

[Anonymous No.11992981]

>>11992966
>That reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.11993017]

>>11992962
>"No!"

[Anonymous No.11993025]

The real problem is that ethical theories are self-effacing. I.e. if your motive to love someone is "maximizing pleasure", "doing your duty", "achieving eudaimonia", then it's not really sincere (in a way), is it?

[Anonymous No.11993033]

>>11992962
Dutiful morality is ignorant of pleasure. A moral act can be done with selfish impetus, though.

[Anonymous No.11993037]

>>11992962
Kant explicitly said there is nothing unconditionally good but a good will -- he literally thought it was more moral to do something you don't want to do. The example being, if someone doesn't want to risk their life, but still goes into the raging river to do his duty and save the child, they are more moral than someone who does the exact same thing but actually wants to.

[Anonymous No.11993058]

>>11993033
>>11993037
Acting morally would satisfy that person on a deeper level than the alternative. The deep moral satisfaction is greater than the displeasure of the act. Doing moral acts that displease them is a life they prefer to the alternative. If they prefer it, it inherently makes them happier.

[Anonymous No.11993065]

>>11992962
oh look, it's the hourly pseud thread

[Anonymous No.11993093]

>>11993058
>Acting morally would satisfy that person on a deeper level than the alternative.
No, not according to Kant. Imagine it a different way, what if there was some alternate scenario to the trolley problem where you can throw yourself in front of the train to save another person. Obviously you can't count the moral satisfaction of this act into account (at least not post-act satisfaction), because the person would be dead. Whatever fleeting moment of satisfaction cannot outweigh dying (unless he was suicidal, but that would still agree with Kant's conception of the good will (i.e. the person who sacrifices himself who is not suicidal is more moral)).

[Anonymous No.11993098]

>>11993093
I can count the satisfaction of the act - in that moment, he has a preference to kill himself to save another.
To prefer something that you like less is inherently contradictory - if you prefer it, there's an aspect of it you like more. He likes to save the person more than he wants to live.

[Anonymous No.11993130]

>>11993098
Again, I think this is a matter of duty rather than satisfaction. Plus I have a feeling you have set up a rigged dilemma. You either choose the option that brings you the most satisfaction, or you choose the one that is less satisfying, but because you chose it, you are necessarily satisfied even more by your lack of satisfaction. In your eyes, there is no possible way to make a decision which would not bring you the greatest amount of satisfaction, which to me is absurd. Have you read any of the utilitarians? Mill, Bentham?

[Anonymous No.11993137]

>>11992962
No. The effort exerted in self improvement can be far more than what would maximize ones pleasure, and the delayed gratification is often less pleasurable and not as long lasting as the hedonistic approach. If someone values self improvement or creative fulfillment and sufferers greatly for it, their moral values cannot be hedonistic.

[Anonymous No.11993149]

>>11992962
You’re still spooked by your christian background. Read Nietzsche to get a better idea of concepts.

[Anonymous No.11994234]

>>11992962
"Do what is right, simply because it is right" is what is most natural. Imagine wanting to do something, notice how it doesn't feel as right if you have ulterior motives; and how perfectly right it feels when you don't have any and just do the right thing because it is right. It's weird, that the moment you add something past the limit, it stops feeling right, and returns to feeling right when you put it back in it's place.

This is the part that's messing you up. There is a commandment in the natural law of mans heart that says "do things only because they are right", and yet we know we are clearly fundamentally motivated by rewards - something else.

I doubt it's a real issue, as consider why such a law is in place. Why would God make man do things just because they are right? Possibly because "what is most right" IS what God's commands, or is from the natural law which is what God's commands. Of course God is perfectly good in his commands, so following his word is the most right thing we can do. It's natural "just because it's right", as doing something for any other reason is doing it to serve demons and not God. However, God does of course promise rewards that matter without end to those whom will do his will, so any time you follow his will you will be perfectly and supremely rewarded for it. If God would offer a reward for valuing what he values and acting on his word, then clearly he isn't intending to go against our happiness-seeking nature.

Basically you don't have to worry about any other reason for doing things, God has you covered if you do it for him alone ie simply because it's right.

[Anonymous No.11994264]

tl;dr it's only immoral to seek happiness because you do so wrongly.

[Anonymous No.11994321]

>>11993130
Aware of utilitarianism, didn't read Mill or Bentham specifically. I don't consider it a rigged dilemma, just how we behave as humans. Why is it absurd?

[Anonymous No.11994341]

>>11993137
The satisfaction they get from self improvement or creative fulfillment is evidently the choice they prefer, and the suffering doesn't dissuade them from that. Their choices can still be hedonistic - if they prefer it, there's an aspect of improvement/fulfillment they like more than the alternative lifestyle without the suffering.

[Anonymous No.11994365]

if you get satisfaction from acting morally then you're not actually acting morally

[Anonymous No.11994436]

>>11994341
Hedonism is about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Just because someone makes a choice to suffer now does not guarantee they will achieve satisfaction in the future, nor does immediate suffering guarantee a greater amount of immediate pleasure. The presupposition to hedonism is that some actions have a greater net pleasure than others: if this isn't true you could do literally ANYTHING and it would still be considered hedonistic. Just because you chose to do something does not automatically make it hedonistic because, by necessity, some actions must have more net pleasure than others. If you can't make a wrong moral choice then there is no choice at all.

[Anonymous No.11994487]

>>11992962
Not really. Unless you want to render the word meaningless. Also, most moral systems have other sources that go against hedonism to some other end (like getting a good afterlife).