Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Excludes them?

Certainly not.

Accepting that some gross averaging to come up with the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” is nowhere near an optimum if it allows disproportionate suffering in minority groups?

Certainly.

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Exploitation of something to achieve that happiness maybe, for example consumerism happiness at the expense of the planet and groups of people who work almost as slaves.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Excludes them?

Certainly not.

Accepting that some gross averaging to come up with the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” is nowhere near an optimum if it allows disproportionate suffering in minority groups?

Certainly.

perhaps they prefer proportionate suffering for the majority

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Excludes them?

Certainly not.

Accepting that some gross averaging to come up with the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” is nowhere near an optimum if it allows disproportionate suffering in minority groups?

Certainly.

perhaps they prefer disproportionate suffering for the majority

foxed, we blame the ‘phone

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

you’d need first maybe define happiness, use some measure, some criteria, that in itself is a difficult thing to do

you could use that sort of idea, maybe was Freud, absence of debilitating persistent discontent, to paraphrase, and for all I know I got that substantially wrong enough to be good as completely wrong, and attributed it to the wrong person, a cluster or wrongness

I suggest it because it’s less demanding of happiness, less an idealization, less normative

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Deontological ethics in general is not concerned with whether actions result in collective or personal happiness. An example is Divine Command Theory, which holds that any moral obligations arise solely from a deities commands.

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Deontological ethics in general is not concerned with whether actions result in collective or personal happiness. An example is Divine Command Theory, which holds that any moral obligations arise solely from a deities commands.

OK, but is that “a justifiable moral stance”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have been reading Heinlein “Time enough for love”, so you know where I’m coming from.

Let’s define hedonism as “the pursuit of personal or collective happiness”

Including the word “collective” allows me to include Bentham’s “greatest happiness of the greatest number” as a type of hedonism. It’s taken me decades to accept this. Bentham’s morality was certainly criticised by contemporaries who called it “hedonism”. Let’s accept this for now.

That brings me to my question. Is there a justifiable moral stance that excludes both personal happiness and collective happiness?

A morality based on fear perhaps, on justice/revenge, on collective anger?

Deontological ethics in general is not concerned with whether actions result in collective or personal happiness. An example is Divine Command Theory, which holds that any moral obligations arise solely from a deities commands.

OK, but is that “a justifiable moral stance”?

yes because oh god

Other moralities:

News reporting: maximise group anger.

Soldier’s morality: survival comes before every other consideration.

Power morality: trample down your inferiors and toady up to your superiors.

Legislative morality: everybody is either innocent or guilty, punish the guilty.