Philosopher views

PLEASURE IS THE HIGHEST VALUE

1. ANTI-PLEASURE CONDITIONING UNDESERVINGLY MAKES HEDONISM A SOCIAL TABOO

Anupama Bhattacharya., Editor of Life Positive Plus, LIFE POSITIVE., October 2001, “The Pleasure Principle,”. , accessed April 30, 2003. p.-np.

"A lot of anti-pleasure conditioning goes into our upbringing," says Sood. "As children, we are told not to feel proud of our achievements. As teenagers, our tentative forays into discovering our sexuality are repressed, when we earn money, we are told it is the root of all evil. Name anything you enjoy-sex, food, luxury, achievement, ambition, appreciation-it is all branded with the devil's name!" No wonder, feelings of pleasure almost always bring up feelings of guilt and shame. And the greater your sacrifice, or self-torture, the higher your stature on the scales of morality. Isn't it time we step back and ask 'why'? SELF-DENIAL We usually think of charity, compassion, humility, wisdom, mercy, sacrifice and other 'virtues' as morally good and pleasure as, at best, morally neutral. In fact, all the virtues are a classic case of self-denial. Why else should asceticism be considered the height of virtue? Why should human beings be born with the capability of enjoyment, if the goal is to deny them?

Anupama Bhattacharya, Editor of Life Positive Plus, LIFE POSITIVE., October 2001, “The Pleasure Principle,”. , accessed April 30, 2003. p- np.

"Organized religions might have their own code of conduct," says Atmara Yogini, a US-based personal growth trainer, "but spirituality does not preach asceticism. What's the point of being human if you cannot take pleasure in the beauty around you?" And how worthwhile would life be if shafts of light breaking through the clouds, a flower blossoming in the wilderness, raindrops caressing your limbs, don't fill you with joy? And why should one be born with a body if one doesn't take pleasure in it? Or have the capacity to feel joy, yet deny it? Pleasure is as much a part of the human experience as life itself.
3. IGNATIEFF BELIEVES RADICAL SELFISHNESS TO BE AN EXPRESSION OF MORAL VIRTUE

Charles Wellborn, Professor of Religion Emeritus at Florida State University, CHRISTIAN ETHICS TODAY, December 1999, “If It Feels Good, Do It”. Issue 25, Vol 5, No. 6. p-np.

Strangely enough, this kind of "feel-good" approach to matters of sexual and economic ethics does not lack its academic defenders. In a lecture last year at the University of Toronto the respected cultural commentator, Michael Ignatieff, argued that radical selfishness was an expression of moral virtue. Human beings, he said, have a prime duty to themselves and a prime right to individual freedom and happiness (pleasure). Ignatieff did not hesitate to face the consequences of his belief. We must, he said, accord respect to an individual's needs "against the devouring claims of family life."
4. HEDONISTS ARGUE THAT TRUTH CAN’T BE KNOWN AND THEREFORE THE BEST SENSORY EXPERIENCES SHOULD GOVERN LIFE

Jennifer Margolin. CSU Northridge. HEDONISM AT ITS BEST AND WORST. May 7, 2001.

“Concerning the nature of pleasure, Epicurus explains that at least some pleasures are rooted in natural and, as a rule, every pain is bad and should be avoided, and every pleasure is good and should be preferred.” Hedonists held that we can never know truth, the only thing we know is what we can sense, such as hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Therefore, we should seek out the best sensory experiences. However, without knowledge of what exactly is the best, you have to basically try everything in order to know what brings you the most pleasure. There is that old adage, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” What is an ideal perfection of happiness to one, is completely opposite for another. Basically, meaning to each is own and thine own self be true. Pleasures of the mind and pleasures of the body have such different meanings and rationales for people. The whole of modern life is governed by pleasure and pain since the enjoyment of the senses always seem to dominate.