Should We Centre Pleasure In Our Lives?
Pleasure is distinctly subjective. What is pleasurable for one is perhaps not pleasurable for another and vice versa. As such, it would not be apt to propose that pleasure represents a universal truth. Certainly, pleasure is something that all human beings alike must and do experience, but that is not to suggest by any means that pleasure isn’t a relative construct.
As Jeremy Bentham would have it, happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The principle of utilitarianism is a consequentialist idea, evaluating actions on the basis of outcomes. Bentham’s ethics are grounded in empirical logic, suggesting that humans are fundamentally hedonistic. This is a largely intuitive idea. Indeed, our primitive instincts are inextricable from our physical and psychological makeup. It is almost impossible to imagine a life decision in which pleasure has not played some part. Even so-called entirely selfless acts are motivated by the hopeful promise of bringing pleasure to another individual and by extension upon the self. Pleasure is intimately tied to human motivation.
The question is not whether or not we should centre pleasure in our lives. To do so would be to reject basic human instinct. To abstain from pleasure-oriented activity is self-reflexive. To abandon said practices is to abandon them in the name of morality, to substitute them for other perceived-to-be morally superior practices. To pursue morality is to maximise pleasure. This is circular.
When we substitute demand for preference, the answer becomes rather clear. Instead of asking whether or not one should permit pleasure to preside over all else, perhaps we might reframe the narrative and ask if it might be preferable to centre pleasure in our lives. I imagine R.M Hare would be most disappointed to discover that this dilemma prevails. Why would any one of sound mind have a preference for pain over and above pleasure?
In any case, the moral question of whether or not pleasurable activity should preside above all persists. It is my firm conviction that the question need not be posed at all.
Pleasure is an integral part of our existence, not least because it shapes our decision-making processes but because it represents a source of positive mental wellbeing. To pursue pleasurable activity is to release positive endorphins. To maintain mental stability – self-love, self-esteem and the like – is to optimise one’s physical health. A healthy mind is conducive to a healthy body and our cognitive processes are essential to our state of physical health. The mind is infinitely powerful and we mustn’t lose sight of this. Pleasure can both be derived from the external world and manifested from within. Notably, the latter is inherently more valuable but perhaps more difficult to achieve.
When we are motivated by pleasure and pursue goals that bring us joy, we can realise creative outcomes. Many a creative idea comes to fruition during or in the wake of a pleasurable activity. Positive spontaneity stimulates creativity. Engaging with art-forms and spending time with like-minded individuals - for example - serve as creative stimulants.
If we are inherently motivated by pleasure, if we truly do seek the very same thing, our combined potential is limitless. To pursue pleasure is to rejoice in shared experiences. This is the heart of community. This is the essence of humanity.
It is interesting to consider, however, the ways in which pursuing pleasure may be counter-productive. Pleasure should only be pursued if this does not come at the expense of one’s reason. Where rationale is abandoned for the sake of pleasure, the pursuit of pleasure might not be so valuable after all. Oftentimes our pleasure-oriented goals have the potential to be destructive. Pleasure is dangerous where it presides over the needs and feelings of other individuals.
Bentham’s utility calculus advocates for pleasure for the greatest number. To achieve said happiness is to maximise pleasure and to minimise pain. This could culminate in counter-intuitive results, namely the tyranny of the majority. If a majority population commit an immoral action to the detriment of a single individual, must we attribute positive moral value to such an act? It would be an injustice to propose that any such act is moral. Where pleasure outweighs pain, the outcome is not invariably desirable - or even humane, at that.
It is still a contention point whether or not we should centre pleasure in our lives, but what remains clear is that pleasure is an animal instinct, inseparable from our human psyche. Pleasure is the essence of our being and it would be counter-intuitive to suggest otherwise.
This article was featured on pages 19-20 in Strand Magazine’s Hedonism Print Edition.
Edited by Roxy-Moon Dahal Hodson
Comments