Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

Theory of hedonismVethicse

Hedonism (Greek hedone - pleasure) - a type of ethical teachings and moral views, in which all moral definitions are derived from pleasure and suffering. In a systematic form, as a type of ethical teaching, hedonism was first developed in the teachings of the Greek Socratic philosopher Aristippus of Cyrene (435-355 BC), who taught that everything that gives pleasure is good.

Consider some ethical values.

Pleasure. Among the positive values, pleasure and benefit are considered the most obvious. These values directly correspond to the interests and needs of a person in his life. A person who by nature strives for pleasure or benefit seems to manifest himself in a completely earthly way.

Pleasure (or enjoyment)- this is a feeling and experience that accompanies the satisfaction of a person's needs or interests.

The role of pleasure and pain is determined from a biological point of view, by the fact that they perform the function of adaptation: human activity depends on pleasure, which meets the needs of the body; lack of pleasure, suffering hinder the actions of a person, are dangerous for him.

In this sense, pleasure, of course, plays a positive role, it is very valuable. The state of satisfaction is ideal for the body, and a person needs to do everything to achieve such a state.

In ethics, this concept is called hedonism (from the Greek. hedone - "pleasure"). This doctrine is based on the idea that the pursuit of pleasure and the denial of suffering is the main meaning of human actions, the basis for human happiness.

In the language of normative ethics, the main idea of this mindset is expressed as follows: "Enjoyment is the goal of human life, good is everything that gives pleasure and leads to it." Freud made a great contribution to the study of the role of pleasure in human life. The scientist concluded that the "principle of pleasure" is the main natural regulator of mental processes, mental activity. The psyche, according to Freud, is such that, regardless of a person's attitudes, feelings of pleasure and displeasure are decisive. The most striking, as well as relatively accessible, can be considered bodily pleasures, sexual, and pleasures associated with satisfying the need for warmth, food, and rest. The principle of pleasure is in opposition to social norms of decency and acts as the basis of personal independence.

It is in pleasure that a person is able to feel himself, to free himself from external circumstances, obligations, habitual attachments. Thus, pleasures are for a person a manifestation of individual will. Behind pleasure there is always desire, which must be suppressed by social institutions. The desire for pleasure turns out to be realized in a departure from responsible relationships with other people.

Ordinary behavior based on prudence and the acquisition of benefits is the opposite of an orientation towards pleasure. Hedonists distinguished between psychological and moral aspects, psychological basis and ethical content. From a moral-philosophical point of view, hedonism is the ethics of pleasure.

Principlesethics of the epicureans

The basic principle of ethics epicureans pleasure is the principle of hedonism. At the same time, the pleasures preached by the Epicureans are distinguished by an extremely noble, calm, balanced and often contemplative character. The desire for pleasure is the original principle of choice or avoidance.

According to Epicurus, if a person's senses are taken away, then nothing remains. Unlike those who preached the principle of “enjoying the minute”, but “whatever will be, will be! ”, Epicurus wants a permanent, even and never-ending bliss. The pleasure of the sage “splashes in his soul like a calm sea on firm shores” of reliability. The limit of pleasure and bliss is to get rid of suffering! According to Epicurus, one cannot live pleasantly without living reasonably, morally and justly, and, conversely, one cannot live reasonably, morally and justly without living pleasantly. However, it would be wrong to reduce the entire content-semantic capacity of Epicureanism to hedonistic motives.

The Epicureans more subtly and deeply approached the problem of enjoying life in the aspect of a person's connection with the world of culture. The enjoyment of life, in their opinion, is achieved through moral exercises, through the development of a new, mature attitude to life's problems. It was the Epicureans who considered the starting point of happiness, firstly, the absence of suffering, secondly, the presence of a clear conscience, not burdened by immoral acts, and, thirdly, good health.

It is not difficult to see that all these three conditions necessary for a person to experience the enjoyment of life do not at all fit with the mythology that the Epicureans called for abstinence in food, drink, love and other comforts and pleasures of life. On the contrary, the deep and subtle meaning of the Epicurean approach to culture lies in the fact that in cultural texts, in various types of cultural creativity, they saw an opportunity to strengthen the moral potential of the individual, improve the sphere of his individual needs and, finally, the possibility of strengthening health.

Satisfaction with life, thus, and the enjoyment of it were inextricably linked with the processes of mastering the spiritual and moral values of the past and present and the need to enter the cultural space of modernity.

Being materialists in their ideological views, the Epicureans, like the skeptics, highly valued the joy of communication between people and nature, but, unlike Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus, they, especially Titus Lucretius Carus, demonstrated in their texts the possibilities of harmonizing everyday relationships between man and with nature and with culture. In their deepest essence, Epicureanism and Rabelaisism, that is, the life-affirming "excessive" attitude to life proclaimed in F. Rabelais's novel "Gargantua and Pantagruel", are not identical.

Epicureanism, in essence, affirms a sense of proportion in a person’s relationship with what nature gives him and what culture can give him, asserts that a truly mature attitude to life helps a person avoid extremes in assessing both the elemental principle associated with the life of nature, and organized pressure on individual consciousness from the official culture.

For the Epicureans, of course, the moral and creative aspect of a person’s daily connection with culture as a second nature, as a way of adapting to reality, as that symbolic universe, in which a person could express his feeling of happiness to live on this earth and be loved, was optimal.

That is why, from the time in which Epicurus, Horace, Titus Lucretius Carus lived, who created the immortal book "On the Nature of Things", Epicurean motifs have survived to this day, being in tune with subsequent generations, and are reflected in the work of many outstanding cultural figures, including XX century, for example, Fellini, Antonioni and others.

Appointing life itself as the meaning of life, the Epicureans taught that the ideal of human existence is ataraxia, or avoidance of suffering, a calm and measured life, consisting of spiritual and physical pleasures given in moderation.

epicureans

Human life is limited by real reality, real sensations. Therefore, ethics must include the science of happiness in this real life. The purpose of our life is pleasure; the criterion of our activity is the feeling of pleasure and pain. That pleasure is the highest goal of our life is as immediately obvious as that fire burns or snow is white.

In Epicurean teaching, Greek ethics is the last time this kind of sermon appears. But it cannot be said that the teaching of Epicurus was similar in everything to the hedonist. The teaching of Aristippus is somehow more cheerful, fresher, younger than Epicurus.

The latter taught pleasure in the same way; but there is an senile trait of fatigue in him: he is a man who has lost faith in pleasure, who above all cherishes imperturbable peace. He wants to enjoy life by developing a systematic diet in himself, subordinating himself to a strict regimen. He does not catch individual fleeting pleasures, like Aristippus, who wanted to drink to the bottom a full cup of pleasures, not embarrassing himself with worries about the past and future, cherishing the present. Epicurus teaches not to chase after instant pleasure, but to seek permanent states contentment.

Therefore, he considers some pleasures directly harmful, teaches them to avoid. Finally, he recognizes with Plato that all pleasure consists in the removal of pain; therefore, he considers the highest state of bliss to be one in which all suffering is removed - bfbsboyb, which is very similar to perfect apathy, impassivity of cynics and stoics.

Every pleasure has its price for the happiness of life only insofar as it contributes to the removal of suffering. Pleasure is only a means to get rid of painful need, and sensual pleasures, according to Epicurus, only disturb the peace of mind and therefore are dangerous for it. Epicurus preaches stable (chbfbufzmbfychz) pleasure, as opposed to the mobile pleasure (zdpnz zen chinzuey) of Aristippus.

The conditions of such pleasure are primarily in our spirit; therefore, Epicurus places spiritual pleasures immeasurably higher than bodily pleasures - another difference from Aristippus. And, although in the end all pleasure and pain depend on bodily movements, only real pleasures and pains, per soul - both future and past.

The spirit is not limited to the realm of the present, and therefore we can have comfort in our spirit from real suffering. And Epicurus exalts the power of the spirit over the body in exactly the same way as the Stoics and Cynics. He thought that with the help of philosophy, a person can actually overcome bodily sorrows and suffering. On this topic, the Epicureans wrote many magnificent recitations: "the wise one, both at the stake and at the cross, will feel happy and say: how sweet this is to me, how much all this does not concern me."

An indispensable condition for such a state of mind is philosophy and prudence. Virtue is necessary for happiness, but it has no value in itself, but only according to the happiness it brings. Rationality frees a person from superstition and empty fears; uschtspuhnz - moderation, self-control - helps to fight suffering; courage frees us from the fear of pain, danger, and even death; justice destroys the fear of punishment and is necessary to ensure the imperturbable tranquility of life, in which is the highest happiness of man. “It is impossible to live pleasantly without living reasonably, moderately and justly.” But at the same time, justice and virtue, as I said, play for Epicurus only the role of a diet that has a purely relative significance for human health: rspurfxsh fsh chblsh, says Epicurus, chby fpizh chenyuzh bhfp hbhmbzhphuyn, pfbn mzdemeibn zdpnzn rpyz.

The Epicurean ideal of the sage comes close to the Stoic ideal. Although Epicurus does not prescribe to the sage perfect dispassion and renunciation of sensual pleasures, he requires from him just as complete self-control, just as complete independence from everything external, like the Stoics. The wise, like a god, walks among people; his happiness is so complete, so inalienable that even being on bread and water, he will not envy Zeus himself.

The special ethics of the Epicureans, in accordance with these provisions, is of the same casuistic nature as the ethics of the Stoics: it is a set of detailed reasoning about individual pleasures, virtues, passions and inclinations of a person, a developed system of everyday rules. Discretion is the main content of his recipes; to this is added independence from external happiness, an average state (measure) and a possible removal from any social life - an original feature; in it, Epicurus met with Heraclitus, although, of course, the reasons that prompted both philosophers were different. Live quietly, advised Epicurus, hide from others; and he himself lived among his fellow disciples, indeed, as he taught others to live. Friendship was the most sympathetic virtue of the Epicureans. On its basis, a general benevolence towards all people developed. Based on the principles of true friendship, Epicurus also rejected Plato's communism: between friends, and so everything is in common; the commune, as a compulsory institution, is a sign of mistrust. And where there is no trust, there is no friendship. Epicurus recognized and taught that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

Apparently, Epicurus himself was an outstanding personality; with it he tied friends to himself and sanctioned his teaching: while eclecticism began to prevail in the second century, and schools began to smooth out their original features, the Epicurean teaching remained unchanged. There were many attacks on the Epicureans, but the opponents themselves recognized the moral character of their school. Cicero says: "... et ipse (Epicurus) bonus vir fuit et multi Epicurei fuerunt et hodie sunt et in amicitiis fideles et in omni vita constantes et graves" (Cicero, Fines, 11, 25, 81). The Epicureans had a lasting success in Rome.

Despite their difference from the Stoics, the Epicureans agreed with them in many respects. They had a common practical tendency about logic: both of them brought to the fore the question of the criterion and refuted skepticism in the name of a practical postulate - behavior based on true knowledge. ethical hedonism epicurean philosopher

In physics, both considered the soul to be material; and even in ethics they equally considered the liberation of oneself from everything external and the removal from worldly fuss as a condition of happiness. All this shows that the Stoic and Epicurean teachings were branches of the same trunk, which only diverged in different directions.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Introduction

Ancient philosophy is "a school of philosophical thinking for all subsequent times, since in its diverse forms "already in embryo, in the process of emergence, almost all the later types of worldviews are present. " The same can be rightfully attributed to ethics, because precisely in ancient culture, the most important ethical problems were posed, various options for their resolution were outlined, the main traditions of future interpretations of questions of the ethical complex were outlined. Anthology of world philosophy. M. collection. 2012, p. 794.

The ethics of antiquity is addressed to man; the famous statement of Protagoras can be considered its peculiar motto: "Man is the measure of all things." It is not accidental, therefore, that the naturalistic orientation predominated in the moral quests of the ancient sages. In addition, the most important feature of their ethical position was the installation on the understanding of morality, the virtue of behavior as rationality. Reason "rules the world" of ancient ethics, its paramount importance (in any particular moral choice and in choosing the right path in life) is not questioned. Another characteristic of the ancient worldview is the desire for harmony (harmony within the human soul and its harmony with the world), which, depending on certain sociocultural circumstances, took various forms of embodiment.

Hedonism

Hedonism (from the Greek hedone - pleasure), an ethical position that affirms pleasure as the highest good and criterion of human behavior and reduces to it the whole variety of moral requirements. The desire for pleasure in hedonism is considered as the main driving principle of a person, embedded in him by nature and predetermining all his actions, which makes hedonism a kind of anthropological naturalism. As a normative principle, hedonism is opposed to asceticism.

In ancient Greece, one of the first representatives of hedonism in ethics was the founder of the Cyrenian school, Aristippus (beginning of the 4th century BC), who saw the highest good in the achievement of sensual pleasure. In a different way, the ideas of hedonism were developed by Epicurus and his followers (see Epicureanism), where they approached the principles of eudemonism, since the criterion of pleasure was the absence of suffering and a serene state of mind (ataraxia). Hedonistic motives become widespread in the Renaissance and then in the ethical theories of the Enlightenment. T. Hobbes, J. Locke, P. Gassendi, French materialists of the 18th century. in the struggle against the religious understanding of morality, they often resorted to a hedonistic interpretation of morality. The principle of hedonism received the most complete expression in the ethical theory of utilitarianism, which understands benefit as pleasure or the absence of suffering (I. Bentham, J. S. Mill). The ideas of hedonism are also shared by some modern bourgeois theorists - J. Santayana (USA), M. Schlick (Austria), D. Drake (USA) and others. Marxism criticizes hedonism primarily for its naturalistic and ahistorical understanding of man, sees in it an extremely simplified interpretation of the driving forces and motives of human behavior, gravitating towards relativism and individualism.

Hedonism originates in the Cyrenaic school and develops as a kind of worldview that upholds the priority of the needs of the individual over social institutions as conventions that limit his freedom and suppress his originality. Cyrenaics believed that pleasure is the highest good and should be achieved by any means. In this, the Cyrenaics differed from Socrates, who, recognizing the significance of pleasure, interpreted it as the consciousness that something is being done well. In polemics with the Sophists, Socrates insisted on distinguishing between pleasures - bad and good, as well as true and false. Plato, in his mature writings, hoped to show that although the good life is not good because it is full of pleasure, it is still possible to prove that the most pleasant life is at the same time the best life. Similarly, Aristotle believed that pleasure as such is not good and not worthy of preference in itself. These ideas were developed in the eudemonism of Epicurus, who considered the real good of pleasure not of the body, but of the soul, but more strictly - the state of ataraxia, i.e. "freedom from bodily suffering and mental anxieties". However, the difference between hedonism and eudemonism is insignificant: both teachings orient a person not towards good, but towards pleasure, and if good, then for the sake of pleasure. Ethics. Lecture notes. - Rostov-on- Don: Phoenix, 2009, p. 79-81.

In the Christian tradition of the Middle Ages, the ideas of hedonism had no place; and only in the Renaissance did they find new supporters (L. Valla, K. Raimondi), and even then at first only in the mild Epicurean version. In modern European thought, the ideas of hedonism, on the one hand, are embodied more or less fully and adequately in most of the philosophical and ethical teachings of that time. They are expressed by B. Spinoza, J. Locke, representatives of ethical sentimentalism (F. Hutcheson, D. Hume). T. Hobbes, B. Mandeville, K. Helvetia directly derive people's behavior from pleasure. However, the latter is increasingly associated with the socially determined interests of the individual; this line in the modern European moral philosophy from Hobbes to Helvetius finds a direct continuation in classical utilitarianism, in which pleasure is equated with utility. Only in the works of de Sade, the principle of pleasure is affirmed in its purest form - as opposed to social institutions and in an indirect polemic with the theory of the social contract. On the other hand, in modern times, the ideas of hedonism turned out to be transferred to such contexts (rationalistic perfectionism and social organization, in one case, and utopia of immoral permissiveness, in another), which ultimately led to the crisis of hedonism as a philosophy. worldview. Concerning pleasure as a practical-behavioral and explanatory-theoretical principle, K. Marx, Z. Freud and J. Moore formulated the provisions from different positions that conceptualized this crisis. Thanks to psychoanalysis, the situation in the study of pleasure is changing: from the psychological side, pleasure can no longer be considered as a universal principle of the behavior of a social individual, especially when it comes to morality. Moore showed that hedonism, in affirming pleasure as the only good, fully embodies the naturalistic fallacy. In the light of such criticism and after it, hedonism could no longer be perceived as a theoretically serious and reliable ethical principle.

Let's look at some core ethical values.

Pleasure. Among the positive values, pleasure and benefit are considered the most obvious. These values directly correspond to the interests and needs of a person in his life. A person who by nature strives for pleasure or utility seems to manifest himself in a completely earthly way.

Pleasure (or enjoyment)- this is a feeling and experience that accompanies the satisfaction of a person's needs or interest.

In this sense, pleasure, of course, plays a positive role, it is very valuable. The state of satisfaction is ideal for the body, and a person needs to do everything to achieve such a state.

In ethics, this concept is called hedonism (from the Greek. hedone - "pleasure"). This doctrine is based on the idea that the pursuit of pleasure and the denial of suffering is the main meaning of human actions, the basis for human happiness.

In the language of normative ethics, the main idea of this mindset is expressed as follows: “Enjoyment is the goal of human life, everything is good,

that gives pleasure and leads to it. Freud made a great contribution to the study of the role of pleasure in human life. The scientist concluded that the "principle of pleasure" is the main natural regulator of mental processes, mental activity. The psyche, according to Freud, is such that, regardless of a person's attitudes, feelings of pleasure and displeasure are decisive. The most striking, as well as relatively accessible, can be considered bodily pleasures, sexual, and pleasures associated with satisfying the need for warmth, food, and rest. The principle of pleasure is in opposition to social norms of decency and acts as the basis of personal independence.

Ordinary behavior based on prudence and the acquisition of benefits is the opposite of an orientation towards pleasure. Hedonists distinguished between psychological and moral aspects, psychological basis and ethical content. From a moral and philosophical point of view, hedonism is the ethics of pleasure.

The emergence of hedonism as a psychological direction occurred in the ancient Greek expanses. It is generally accepted that the founder of this doctrine was the philosopher Aristippus. What this concept really means and who can be considered a hedonist, we will consider further.

According to numerous scientific sources, the concept of hedonism is interpreted as an ethical doctrine that defines the meaning of a person's life, which boils down to a constant desire to receive satisfaction and various pleasures from almost everything that surrounds him.

This teaching defines unbridled joy, sweet delight, pleasure as the main goal, an impulse to life and a kind of proof of morality. In other words, according to the philosophy of hedonism, the highest good for a person is to live a carefree, simple life, filled with exclusively positive emotions and devoid of all kinds of suffering and grief.

The essence of hedonism lies in such human behavior, which is completely aimed at obtaining pleasure. This implies both physical and moral pleasure. However, much more often the hedonist tries to get the maximum pleasure from physical activities and material things.

Philosophical interpretation

Aristippus, who is the founder of hedonism, said that the soul of every person has a dual character: partly it is pleasure, as a manifestation of softness and tenderness, and on the other hand, despair and pain as harshness and rudeness.

Thus, Aristippus believed that True happiness depends on getting real enjoyment from your own life. and avoidance of all sorts of unpleasant situations, in other words, pain. Aristippus thought that real pleasure can really be obtained precisely with the help of physical things, that is, felt ones. For example, a hedonist enjoys delicious food and drinks, comfortable and beautiful clothes, intimacy with the opposite sex, a hot shower and other delights of life.

But the pleasures of the spiritual level, obtained, for example, from watching an interesting show, attending a cultural event, listening to your favorite music, observing a picturesque landscape, Aristippus gave a secondary role, although, of course, he recognized them as quite significant.

When discussing the philosophy of hedonism, it is worth mentioning such a famous thinker as Epicurus. Despite the fact that he was not at all an ardent defender of this doctrine, in many ways his scientific views are similar to the ethics of hedonism. The worldview of Epicurus is called eudemonism and defines pleasure as the principle of a successful life. And the main goal of eudemonism, according to the philosopher, is the final deliverance of a person from pain, torment and misfortune, and not just simple pleasure.

The highest satisfaction, according to Epicurus, can be achieved by completely getting rid of all kinds of suffering and pain. That is you can be truly happy, if you get rid of various anxieties and unnecessary anxiety, as well as moderately using earthly blessings.

In the XVIII century, when the era of absolutism reigned, hedonism became an important life principle, which all the aristocrats of that time tried to adhere to. Most of all, the French of this era were imbued with the hedonistic direction. But it is worth saying that the very concept of hedonism during this period was limited for the most part to the desire to receive the simplest pleasures: physical pleasures, which were often perceived as immorality.

The revival of the multilateral philosophical concept of "hedonism" occurred already in the 19th century thanks to the English lawyer and thinker Jeremy Bentham. Bentham became popular due to his idea of utilitarianism. This is an ethical-philosophical direction is based on several main postulates:

the meaning of a person's initiative lies in finding true pleasure and getting rid of all kinds of torment;
the most important criterion for evaluating any phenomena is the usefulness of the person himself and his work for the whole society;
the main criterion of morality is a guide to finding a sense of happiness for the maximum number of people;
the main link in the development of mankind is the constant desire to increase benefits by achieving harmony in the public and personal interests of each person individually.

In other words, Jeremy Bentham argued that every person must have a kind of "hedonistic calculation" even in everyday life.

hedonistic lifestyle

But who can still be called a hedonist, and how does such a person live? Of course, first of all, this is a person who, throughout his life, follows the principles of hedonism. The main goal for such a person is to obtain a variety of pleasures and pleasures. A hedonist is a person who tries in every possible way to reduce his own suffering.

All the actions of a hedonist, as a rule, are aimed at truly enjoying life at this very moment, while not paying attention to the likely negative consequences of his actions in the future.

Full life, as the hedonist thinks, is a collection of pleasant sensations.

If at the moment something gives real pleasure to the hedonist, he will devote all his time and attention to this occupation until a new hobby appears in his life. This is the person who is not afraid to make new fascinating acquaintances for the purpose of love and friendship. But as soon as the relationship exhaust themselves and the novelty of them will disappear, the hedonist will instantly change them to a new hobby. Considering that the hedonist values only his present, he is even capable of doing things for the sake of momentary pleasure that can lead to very unpleasant consequences.

Undoubtedly, another feature of the hedonist is the abuse of demonstrative behavior and the desire to constantly be in the center of not only ongoing events, but also everyone's attention. And some facts only prove this theory :

in the life of any hedonist, his appearance plays an extremely important role; not a single trend in the world of fashion and beauty can do without their attention;
of course, it is hedonists who can be safely given the role of trendsetters;
often just hedonists become pioneers of new, outrageous, little-known brands;
these people are always ready for bold experiments - hedonists are not at all afraid to dress extravagantly, brightly paint and commit rash acts.

Hedonists are characterized by impulsive behavior, due to which they usually make purchases extremely quickly: such a person literally grabs the first thing he likes from the window, which is distinguished by brightness and unusual style. After all appearance, just like the general appearance of a hedonist should be a demonstration of his main life motto: "I am exceptional and worthy of only universal admiration." In addition, it is extremely important for a hedonist to feel his own attractiveness and uniqueness.

Is it good or bad to be a hedonist?

On the one hand, the hedonist often manifests himself as a real egoist, because first of all he cares about his own benefits, advantages and conveniences. On the other hand, partly selfishness is inherent in almost every person. Indeed, in our time, people who are completely indifferent to matters of their own comfort are almost impossible to find.

Finally, what's wrong with living for your own pleasure and taking care of your own convenience? Only one thing is important: to find in time the finest line between innocent pleasure and an indifferent attitude towards other people, their interests, dignity and honor.

Video

From the video you will learn what hedonism is.

pleasure") is an ethical doctrine that considers enjoyment to be the highest good, and the pursuit of pleasure as the principle of behavior. Designed by Aristippus (Cyrenaic). It should be distinguished from eudemonism, which recognizes the pursuit of happiness as the basis of moral behavior.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HEDONISM

Greek pleasure) is a way of substantiating morality and interpreting its nature and goals, widely used in the history of ethical thought. G. reduces all the content of various moral requirements to a common goal - to obtain pleasure and avoid suffering. This goal is considered as the driving principle in a person, embedded in him by nature (Naturalism) ft ultimately determining all his actions. As a principle of morality, which prescribes to people the desire for earthly joys, G (like eudemonism) is the opposite of asceticism. In Ancient. Greece, one of the first philosophers who carried out the principle of G. in ethics were Democritus and Aristippus. G. Epicurus is best known for his justification, with the name of which a whole trend in moral theory is associated - Epicureanism G.'s ideas were also preached by the Roman follower of Epicurus Lucretius. In the era of the Middle Ages, the ideologists of the Christian church sharply condemned gypsy, considering earthly pleasures to be sinful (Sin). This is not accidental, since he was the best answer to the “classical” bourgeois view of a person, first of all, as a private entrepreneur (“the driving force of the society is a private person pursuing his own interests; the goal of the society and, consequently, morality should be the good of this private individual, and his material well-being is, in the final analysis, the content of the universal good.) Hobbes, Locke, Gassendi, Spinoza, and the French materialists of the 18th century, in their struggle against the religious understanding of morality, often resorted to a hedonistic interpretation of morality. In the future, the principle of G. found its most complete expression in utilitarianism.G.'s ideas are shared by many theorists of modern bourgeois ethics - J. Santayana, M. Schlick, D. Drew, etc. In ancient times and in modern times, G. played a generally progressive role and ethics, since it opposed religious morality and represented its own attempt to interpret the morality of materialistic positions. However, it cannot be considered a scientific principle of ethical theory. Moreover, it does not correspond to the modern level of titles about a person. Marxism views man as a social being. With this t sp. the reduction of diverse human needs to enjoyment is an extreme simplification and: ultimately comes from a biological or purely psychological understanding of man as only a natural being. The hedonistic principle, in addition, is individualistic in nature and often gravitates towards ethical relativism. The pleasures themselves, to which people aspire, are of a concrete historical nature, their content is not the same in different hysterical epochs and among different social groups. Therefore, it is only in social practice that one should look for the origin of the centuries of aspirations and goals that people set for themselves. In the modern bourgeois society, a complex of moral ideas of anarcho-G. is being formed, where the “natural” inclinations of a person to unlimited pleasures are mystified and deified, labor discipline, social duties, cultural and moral norms are rejected as the basis of conservatism (Nihilism), demands are put forward to search for new uncontrolled primitive connections between people, legalization of immorality. Anarcho-G. serves, on the one hand, as an extreme means for the mass dissemination / morality of consumerism, and on the other hand, as a way to divert the critical sections of the bourgeois society from truly revolutionary morality

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓