write an essay

User Generated

xriva123456789

Humanities

Description

For the assignments- Three detailed paragraphs. One quote with quotation marks and cited APA from the book in each of three paragraphs is mandatory. So each paragraph has a quote with quotation marks and cited in APA from the book (three quotes minimum from the book for the assignment). Then discuss the quote by quoting or paraphrasing from at least one of your other sources in each of three paragraphs. Each paragraph has a quote from the book and at least one cited paraphrase or quote from another source. Four total sources for the assignment!

Question:

• Explain the difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value, and give examples of things you take to be valuable in each way. Next, define hedonism. What does the hedonist claim is intrinsically valuable, and what does he claim is instrumentally valuable?

• Hedonists distinguish between two types of pleasure. Explain this distinction and give examples of each type of pleasure. Which type of pleasure do hedonists claim is more important? Why do you think they say this? Do you agree with this claim?

• Can you think of any case in which experiencing pleasure fails to contribute to a person’s well-being? If so, consider what a hedonist might say in order to undermine such a case.

• What are “evil pleasures” and why do they seem to be a problem for hedonism?

• Do we always have a reason to do whatever would benefit ourselves? How does the desire satisfaction theorist explain the connection between reason and self-interest? Is the desire theorist's account better than the objective theorist's? Why or why not?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Require: Book: The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer Landau Third Edition For the assignments- Three detailed paragraphs. One quote with quotation marks and cited APA from the book in each of three paragraphs is mandatory. So each paragraph has a quote with quotation marks and cited in APA from the book (three quotes minimum from the book for the assignment). Then discuss the quote by quoting or paraphrasing from at least one of your other sources in each of three paragraphs. Each paragraph has a quote from the book and at least one cited paraphrase or quote from another source. Four total sources for the assignment! Question: • Explain the difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value, and give examples of things you take to be valuable in each way. Next, define hedonism. What does the hedonist claim is intrinsically valuable, and what does he claim is instrumentally valuable? • Hedonists distinguish between two types of pleasure. Explain this distinction and give examples of each type of pleasure. Which type of pleasure do hedonists claim is more important? Why do you think they say this? Do you agree with this claim? • Can you think of any case in which experiencing pleasure fails to contribute to a person’s well-being? If so, consider what a hedonist might say in order to undermine such a case. • What are “evil pleasures” and why do they seem to be a problem for hedonism? • Do we always have a reason to do whatever would benefit ourselves? How does the desire satisfaction theorist explain the connection between reason and self-interest? Is the desire theorist's account better than the objective theorist's? Why or why not? 24 THE FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS When asking about what makes a life go better for us, we will of course want to know which things are instrumentally valuable, so we can get our hands on them. But when we take a philosophical step back and ask why (for instance) going to the dentist, or making money, makes us better off, we will need to have some grasp of what is intrinsically good for us- something whose presence, all by itself, makes us better off. A natural way to start thinking about this is to consider some clearly good lives, ones that definitely qualify as being good for the people who live them. My top ten wouldn't include those of anyone you'd ever heard of. Instead, I'd pick the lives of certain of my friends and acquaintances, people who are deeply invested in their exciting work, secure in their love for others, physically healthy and active, and possessed of modest but real self-esteem and self-respect. But there is no need to be limited by my choices. Think about your own top candidates, and then ask yourself this question: What makes each of those lives so good? Is there a single feature that each of them shares, something that explains why they are as good as they are? If so, what is it? The most popular answer is just what you'd expect: happiness. On this view, a good life is a happy life. This means something pretty specific. It means that happiness is necessary for a good life; a life without happiness cannot be a good life. It also means that happiness is sufficient for a good life: When you are happy, your life is going well. The happier you are, the better your life is going for you. And the unhappier you are, the worse off you are. On this view, there is only a single thing that is intrinsically good for us: happiness. Everything else improves our lives only to the extent that it makes us happy. Likewise, there is just one thing that is intrinsically bad for us: unhappiness. Unhappiness is the only thing that directly reduces our quality of life. There is a name for this kind of view: hedonism. The term comes from the Greek word hédoné, which means “pleasure” According to hedonists, a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and is free of pain. Before we can assess hedonism, we have to recognize that there are two fundamental kinds of pleasure: physical pleasure and attitudinal plea- sure (enjoyment). The first kind is the sort we experience when we taste a delicious fall apple, or when we let the jets from a hot tub dissolve the ten- sion in our backs. These very different kinds of pleasurable feelings usually make us happy, at least for the moment. But such feelings are not the same thing as happiness. The Attractions of Hedonism Hedonism can trace its origins in the West to the ancient Greeks. Epicu- rus (341-270 BCE), the first great hedonist, argued that pleasure was the only thing worth pursuing. Yet he was not calling on us to pursue carnal pleasures. Epicurus argued that the most pleasant condition is one of inner peace. The ideal state of tranquility comes largely from two sources: moderation in all physical matters, and intellectual clarity about what is truly important. 2. Many who reject hedonism still believe that happiness is the key to a good life. The disagreement is about what happiness really is. Hedonists insist that it is a kind of experience we have—the experience of enjoyment. Others, such as Aristotle, claim that happiness is much more than this; it is, in particular, a combination of enjoyment, intelligence, virtue, and activity. The sort of happiness that we discuss in this chapter and the next is the one that hedonists have in mind-namely, enjoyment. 26 THE FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS Philosophy is the path to such clarity. Philosophy can reveal the false beliefs that cause so much unhappiness-specifically, as Epicurus saw it, our beliefs that death is bad for us, that the gods are mean-spirited and easily angered, and that sex and money are key ingredients in the good life. Philosophy can help explain the error of such popular ways of think- ing, and thereby ease us along the path to happiness. Skip ahead a couple thousand years, and consider the view of English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), perhaps the most famous hedonist since Epicurus. Mill's critics claimed that hedonism was a "doc- trine of the swine." because it advised us to live like animals, gaining as much brute pleasure as possible. Mill argued that pleasures come in dif- ferent levels of quality, and that the best pleasures for human beings were those that come only through hard work—especially the work of the mind. Intellectual and artistic pleasures topped his list; physical pleasures were at the bottom. Mill thought that people who have enjoyed both physical and Conclusion Hedonism has always had its fans. And, as we have seen, there are many good reasons for its popularity. It explains why there are many paths to a good life. It strikes a balance between a view that imposes just one blueprint of a good life and a view that allows anything to be valuable so long as you think it is. It provides a ready explanation for why misery so clearly damages a life and why happiness so clearly improves it. Hedonism offers a natural stopping point for explaining what is intrinsically valu- able. It accounts for why the rules of a good life allow for exceptions. And happiness is what we want for our loved ones—what better evidence that happiness truly contributes to a good life? And yet hedonism is not problem-free. I think that hedonists have good replies to the paradox of hedonism, the worry about evil pleasures, and Ross's Two Worlds objections. But things become trickier when we consider the value of a happiness that is based on false beliefs. Further, hedonists cannot allow for the intrinsic value of autonomy. They can't make sense of the idea that, of two lives containing the same amount of happiness, the one that continually shows improvement is better than the one that has gone steadily downhill. Hedonists also fail to appreciate that CHAPTER 2 Is Happiness All that Matters? 43 unhappiness is often a symptom that something intrinsically valuable- something other than happiness—has been lost. Perhaps happiness is not, after all, the key to our well-being. Let's now consider an alternative approach—one that tells us that getting what you want is the measure of a good life. Evil Pleasures Some people take great delight in doing the most awful things. Think of supposed friends who tempt others into addiction, or a powerful boss who betrays a vulnerable employee. These tawdry people may really be enjoying themselves. But when such enjoyment comes at someone else's expense, it hardly seems a good thing, much less the best thing. We can build another anti-hedonist argument around this point. Call it the Argument from Evil Pleasures: 1. If hedonism is true, then happiness that comes from evil deeds is as good as happiness that comes from kind and decent actions. 2. Happiness that comes from evil deeds is not as good as happiness that comes from kind and decent actions. 3. Therefore, hedonism is false. This argument fails, and it's instructive to see why. There is a confu- sion contained within it, and it's one that is easy to fall prey to. When we say that happiness that comes from one source is as good as happiness from any other source, we might mean that each is mor- ally equivalent to the other. When we read premise 2 and nod our heads approvingly, this is probably what we have in mind. But this is not what hedonists have in mind. They don't think that each episode of happiness is as morally good as every other. Rather, they think that the same amount of happiness, no matter its source, is equally beneficial. According to hedonism, happiness gained from evil deeds can improve our lives just as much as happiness that comes from virtue. In this sense, happiness derived from evil deeds is as good as happiness that comes from virtue—each can contribute to our well-being just as much as the other. Hedonists therefore reject premise 2. And aren't they right to do so? Think about why the happiness of the wicked is so upsetting. Isn't it precisely because happiness benefits them, and we hate to see the wicked prosper? If happiness doesn't make us better CHAPTER 2 Is Happiness All that Matters? 35
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Find attached. I just in...


Anonymous
Awesome! Made my life easier.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags