It seems to me that everything is a matter of utility. It is a matter of how much benefit is arrived a or how much pleasure, or how much good. I would go further and say that spcifically it is a matter of pleasure or happiness, it is what will result in the most pleasure as by what we judge what is most beneficial, what is right , and what is good. Even in the case of one who spends their whole life suffering pain to do ‘good’ for the sake of religion, do they not do so because it is the righteous thing and allows them in heaven thus the most pleasuer, infinite pleasure? Or otherwise some one does it to avoid displeasure which is simply contrapositive I would think, maintnance of pleasure… It would seem that even someone who does something good without biblical reason or what have you still do it because they think it is the right thing to do and doing otherwise would not “feel right” thus they are doing it to feel right, and thus to maintain or induce the pleausre of the righteous feeling… I imagine one does not have to think of it like this but rather such may be done subconciously… One might think they didn’t think of a reason to do it, but thatjust means they didn’t think of a reason conciously it doesn’t mean they weren’t acting out of subconcious conditioning on the very basis of pleasureing or preventing displeasure…
Is this the case?
Name a situation I am sure it can be shown to be a matter of pleasure.
I suspect you can see that way by being flexible with the usage of “pleasure”. If I have an affair, it’s for my physical pleasure, if I choose to stay faithful, it for my emotional/spiritual pleasure, if I flirt it’s for my massaged-ego pleasure. This only says anything about your ability to build narratives towards a particular end, and nothing about the way the world works. If you have a theory that explains everything in this way, it explains nothing.
Some would say everything is subjective…my point is to say that it would seem that everything is a matter of pleasure. Anything can be a matter of someone’s interpretation can it not? but for the sake of the picky I guess I’ll edit that and just calim that it is always the case, but then someone will argue that…it seems people like to argue the words more then the concept…but I’ll see what I can do…
Further one might point out that if it is included possibly within the idea of pleasure is it not then to an extent a matter of pleasure? For example it is not inclusive that displeasure is pleasure, thus it would seem some things can’t be included, but it would seem to me that any action is.
You seem to want to get back to a discussion of ‘good/bad’ without using the same words. You seem to feel, for example, that everyone will do or be ‘good,’ because ‘doing good’ brings benefit to many. But you ignore the fact–and, yes, it is fact,–that what is pleasurable for one is criminal for many. This is what I call your ‘naivete’. There are people for whom breaking the law means pleasure–excitement, even. There is a lot of that going on in the world.
But then there are more subtle things. Is it pleasurable to not give to a charity, for example? It can be for some who believe giving money does no good in the long run.
My point is: pleasure/pain, good/bad, moral/immoral are all subjective feelings, which differs greatly from saying that "everything is subjective."
The point of this topic is not to discuss what is good or bad specifically, just that when we decide what is good or bad regardless of whether it is thought to be criminal by the many or not, we decide to do so because we think it is right, we do what is right because it is pleasurable…
Abstract: One must be careful to distinguish primary from secondary motivations, as well as motivations from accompanying feelings. For example, I might derive pleasure from donating old clothes to charity; however, the derivation of pleasure is not my primary motivation for doing so. In any action, there are a number of emotions, motivations, inclinations and expectations at work. It is true that pleasure seems to turn up, consistently, in most of our actions. However, it is quite a leap from there to the claim that pleasure is the fundamental motivation for our actions. In the same case, I might also feel disgust with myself for having purchased such a surplus of clothing in the first. If the act of donating my clothing calls attention to how unnecessary an amount I own, then one might be equally justified (that is, not justified at all) in claiming that I donate to feel ashamed of myself. Realistically, shame is only an accompanying feeling, and not a primary motivation. The same goes for pleasure.
O_H is also correct in pointing out how so many psychological egoists stretch the concept of pleasure to suit the needs of their philosophy. When we define “pleasure” in a way that privileges it as the motivation for all action, it can only be in arrogance that we can claim to have discovered the motivation for all action.
it is true that, in terms of evolution, those species and types survive in whom acts leading to their survival and procreation causes pleasure.
Because they are inclined to perform those acts.
This does not mean that if something does not give us pleasure, it should not be done. Nor does it mean that everything we do to survive causes us pleasure.
it also doesn´t mean that all acts giving pleasure are instrumental in survival and procreation.
So I would agree with others here that the sake of pleasure is not enough to describe motivation.
My point was (as without_music far more eloquently explained) that what seems like a concept to you is really only a rearrangement of words. Pleasure is that which motivates you, therefore everything is motivated by pleasure.
Thought precedes action; no thought no action. Each thought we think splits itself up and creates the division of the thinker or the self and the world. The process of thinking is a constant attempt to become other than itself, to change the given or the present condition, however the condition is perceived to be. Thought uses all its knowledge of the past, knowledge of all the things that have given us pleasure or pain, to create a state of permanence for itself, a state of permanent happiness, and perpetually seeks to attain that state. Whether it is a millionaire seeking the next million or a religious devotee seeking God’s grace, the process of seeking is identical.
Thought uses the mechanism of knowledge to perpetuate itself, to create a continuity and permanence for itself. Thought can never know anything as it is. It has to distort what is given according to its predilections as to what is pleasant and what is unpleasant, pursue what it sees as pleasant, avoid what it sees as unpleasant in experience, and perpetuate itself in this process of seeking.
Well i would think that pleasure is not the only quality we are conscious of in an act, but it seems to always be the initializer of an act. If we choose to do a thing we do it because it is right, we do what is right because there is benefit from such, that is how we recognize it as right. For example if Jumping off a cliff to save a child would end the world, and a person did not want the world to end they would not do it…they would not want the world to end because if it did it would end humanity, they don’t see such as good (i’m kinda being a devils advocate now…I’m not sure this is true…) because either it will cause them pain and be a waste, or that by not doing what is good something bad for them will result.
in the case you mentioned don’t you feel ashamed for yourself because it lead to benefit…perhaps instead of lplesure i should say that we always do thing for benefit, for the self. So then we can be selfless and yet we are always (un negatively conotated) selfish.
yes I was allowing my self to seem Argonaut, may have been arrogant, the arrogant person is blind to their arrogance though…typically…eh…sometimes…
But I still think that at least all things are motivated by benefit. yet i think one can set the self beyond what is there skin and see that all things are connected and like one self.
Well I was considering pleasure not in the immediate but long term…it may not cause us pleasure now but we see that it will cause us pleasure in the future, or at least we think it will. but perhaps i should use “benefit” instead.