It is somewhat morally problematic if you simply phrase it that way. If I wanted to maximize my happiness in a Hedonistic manner, I would completely disregard moral norms and values for my own benefit and betterment.

That bitter medicine for your sickness? Gone. That yummy food that will to cause you Diabetes? Sure.

It is really problematic when you realize unmodified Hedonism is extremely short-sighted. It is unable to formulate decisions that prolong satisfaction. That is my main point that came into mind. What do you think?

Is basically a view, that The Basic Reason for a human to do something is to Be Happy and to avoid Pain. For now I believe it, but I'm open to change, so do you have any argument against it? :D — diesynyang

Any argument that has everyone being motivated by the same thing, or claiming that everyone thinks about anything the same way, is going to be wrong. People are different from each other. They have different motivations (at different times), they think about things differently, etc.

^Well, okay, that is fair, Give me an example. Without an example to proof your theory to analyze. I'm still not convince

Sure. An example could be someone, say, voluntarily trimming the trees in some public park once a month, simply because they feel they have a duty to trim the trees in that park.

^What if I say if we look deeper, the thing with people with "Duty" is they feel happy when "They Done their Good Duty" (A Dopamine Release because of that), and they can choose, either they do their duty, OR they feel guilty (Because the thing with Duty is, if you know you have to do it, and you don't do it, you feel guilty). Then I can say "People who trim tree voluntarily, because of duty, know it is their duty to trim it, and they do it, to avoid the displeasure of guilt".

^ You are free to continue to argue using this example, or change to another example by the way :D

What if I say if we look deeper — diesynyang

That amounts to "I'm going to make up an interpretation --I'll posit something 'behind the scenes' that the person isn't even aware of, and I'll insist that it's there even if the person isn't aware of it--just so my theory stays intact as universally applicable."

I'll posit something 'behind the scenes' that the person isn't even aware of, — Terrapin Station

^Umm, why is that wrong exactly, "Interpretation" like that is needed and used you know, Psychologist who use Psychoanalysis does this. When their patient say A, the Psychologist must interpret and point what that person isn't aware of to make the person aware. If you want to defend a theory, of course this is okay. What you can do however, is to find the fault in my analysis

^Umm, why is that wrong exactly, — diesynyang

Because there needs to be evidence of something to posit that it occurs.

In this case, you're starting with the theory that you don't want to be wrong, and you're playing the game where you'll make whatever moves necessary to make the theory not wrong. It's a kind of theory worship. The theory is the trump card and must be accommodated at all costs.

^The thing with evidence is. You can disproof a theory if you give a disprove evidence. You can also proof a theory if you give an evidence to proof. Well, because there are no evidence to disprove it, it can still be valid (Hence the debate is still going in today's time)

As for my proof

"https://jura.ku.dk/jurabog/pdf/juridiske-monografier/ross_on_guilt_responsibility_and_punishment_1975.pdf"

In this case, you're starting with the theory that you don't want to be wrong — Terrapin Station

^ But dude, I want to be wrong, but I will accept it is wrong, if my rebuttal is wrong. and because it haven't been disproved, it is still valid

^Well, a smart people choose "Higher Pleasure" and unwise people choose "Lesser Pleasure". We drink bitter medicine, because we want to avoid the bigger pain and want to feel the bigger pleasure (That is being healthty)

Empirical claims are not provable.

The fact that there's one person who is motivated by something else on one occasion falsifies the theory. The fact that you have to make up "Well, this was really going on but they just weren't aware of it" to have the theory not be falsified is a symptom of theory worship.

You don't want to be wrong. You're creating fictions to keep the theory intact.

"In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge)."

I agree that if "One person is motivated by something else will fail the theory" (that's why I want an example of that 1 person). The Well, this was really going on but they just weren't aware of it" is also valid, if you said it is invalid then you can say that the Psychoanalysis is false. and Psychologist is theory worshipping ( / _ \ )

"In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge)." — diesynyang

Doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. "Every action is motivated by x" is an empirical claim, and "S was really motivated by x; S simply wasn't aware of this" is also an empirical claim. Empirical claims need some sort of evidence (not necessarily empirical evidence, though some part of the evidential chain will be empirical in most cases) to support them.

And in general, any claim that something is going on mentally with someone where they just weren't aware of it had better be supported by evidence of some sort, or the claim is garbage.

I don't think that's hedonistic anymore? Isn't Hedonistic trying to improve net happiness in every decision you make? In that sense, you choose to not drink the bitter medicine since you are a strict Hedonist.

The strict Hedonist would also like to reason that limiting pain or displeasure would lead be the morally just choice. There leads to a morally problematic situation though.

^Very Well, Then we need a research that does that right, or at least the paper from a people who know this better. at least any evidence to support that right?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848615001612 < The Research

If you can't see it, you can see it here > https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.011#

:D

Again, the fact that there's one person who is motivated by something else on one occasion falsifies the theory.

Also, "from a people who know this better" is patronizing. Maybe you have no relevant background for this stuff, but you can't assume that everyone posting here is in the same boat as you re educational background, research background, professional status, etc.

^Well, I'm talking about PsychologicalHedonism though, but point taken. But no, that's not a strict hedonist. I would call that stupid hedonist. Because net Happiness mean being healthy dude.

My bad, didn't completely read the article.

^Yes, and again, Up until now, there are still no evidence that that One Person exist. Because when you "Theory Worshiping" You can break down those claim. ( / _ \ ).

Sigh..... okay dude, I know you're a bit frustrated by me. But let's make it this way. How about you tolerate my "Theory Worshiping" and give me an example that can even pass my theory worship. Do you think you can give me that (/ w \)

If you wanted to say something like "Many people are often motivated by consideration of a pleasure/pain metric" I don't think that it would get much resistance.

Of course, that's not as sensational of a claim. It's not as click-baity.

Up until now, there are still no evidence that that One Person exist. — diesynyang

Yeah, there is. I just gave you one example. You had to make up that, "Well, really they're motivated by hedonism, they just don't know it."

I'm not frustrated by you. I'm trying to help you. I have a lot of patience.

Umm, what about the soldier who died to save his comrade in the battlefield, like that situation given in the article you quoted from?

^Fair enough, But let's talk Novelty right now, that paper is done in 2004, in 2004 people still debating that. Now, is 2018 and people still debating that while taking the criticism of that 2004 journal in question. But as time goes on, so those the research to defense Psychological Egoism.

https://reasonpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/rp_392_5.pdf < Which is this one.

The debate still going dude, and in this forum, I'm trying to test that view.But Fine, I agree that it is empirically hard to proof. But it still can be defend. And i'm looking for the theory worship bypass evidence or example.

In a similar move, I could say something like, "Really, every person is motivated by a sense of duty and NOT by a pleasure/pain metric. No one really does anything because of pleasure or pain. When someone says that they're doing something because they enjoy it, and they say that to their knowledge, that's the ONLY reason that they're doing it, it's simply because they're unaware that deep down, they have a sense of duty to do that thing. Parsing it as pleasure is just a rationalizing mechanism."

Or I could say, "Really, every person is only motivated by wanting to collect data for the aliens who are running the simulation we're a part of. When someone says that they're surfing because they enjoy surfing, they don't realize that what's really going on is that subconsciously, we have a desire to collect data for the aliens."

And I'd approach any suggested counterexample in the same way--"they don't realize that what's really going on is . . ."

I could make up anything for that.

^At that specific time of time, the Body thinks The pain of losing one's friend is greater than to die in battle.

^At that specific time of time, the Body thinks The pain of losing one's friend is greater than to die in battle. — diesynyang

False, at that specific time the body thinks that it wants to collect data for the aliens. Pain and pleasure have nothing to do with it.

Really, every person is motivated by a sense of duty — Terrapin Station

^ I agree,You can say that. But you can rooted "Duty" to "Pleasure and Pain", But you can't exactly rooted "Pleasure/Pain" Because when you are left with "I don't know, it makes me happy because of dopamine"

^Even the alien example, like "Why do u want to collect data?" "because I want to know about alien" "why do u want to know" "because i want to be stronger" "why stronger" etc etc and in the end you're left with happiness ( / _ \ )