The map is not the territory. Your beliefs and desires are incommensurate with reality. As such, trying to make reality map desires is nonsensical.

In addition to that, I notice that preference utilitarianism always seems to focus on changing reality, rather than changing preferences. I see no reason to do this. If there's six billion humans, and 10^53 kg of reality, change the humans.

Also, happiness seems more fundamental. Desires are just what make you happy.

There might be an issue with terminology. Are you opposing utilitarianism based on pursuit of immediate gratification versus a different kind that is based on whatever the individual chooses? Preferentialism is a loaded word that can imply belief in natural law and natural rights, which is what utilitarianism opposes.

I am currently leaning toward a broad definition of utility that includes or represents overall well-being (this is still allowed in utilitarianism—see the middle of the page on utility). I might alter that response if you were asking about utilitarianism as a political philosophy. I might have specific ideas about what is in my best interest in the long run, but I might not be willing to impose that on the masses (e.g., my level of risk aversion, preference for education, aversion of organized sports and TV...).

As for why I don't prefer hedonism (though others here do), it is because I see it as self-destructive to ignore consideration of the long-term consequences of actions (e.g., smoking crack might be really fun right now, but the long-term consequences are definitely bad), and it seems that I have a future-orientated disposition.

What's the difference between overall well-being and hedonism?

I see it as self-destructive to ignore consideration of the long-term consequences of actions

All Consequentialists consider consequences. That's what makes them Consequentialist. I suppose that if you favor future discounting, you won't care as much about longer-term consequences. Is that what you're referring to?

DanielLC wrote: I suppose that if you favor future discounting, you won't care as much about longer-term consequences. Is that what you're referring to?

Future discounting is part of what I mean, although I weigh the future more heavily than the average person. There are varying definitions of hedonism, but I typically associate it with the stereotypical pursuit of immediate gratification. Other versions of hedonism focus on a more stable existence—regardless of the definitions, I don't think I evaluate my well-being exclusively on feelings of pleasure and pain. I value contentment more than thrill-seeking, which tells me that either I have to adopt a new system of math or conclude that immediate pleasure is not the most precise way to measure what I seek.

I also value nature (including plant life) independent of its utility to humans. It is difficult to fit that into a coherent utilitarian philosophy (mainly due to the difficulty justifying a system of values that is not dictated by some rational principle), but I might make sense of it some day. Consequentialism allows consideration of any type of consequence, but utilitarianism has historically excluded some parts of nature. Now that I think of it, perhaps a principle of utility based in pleasure and pain reflects kingdomism (discrimination of things not in the animal kingdom) and will someday expand to include the well-being of all life (I'm making this up as I go!).

I see pleasure and pain as an evolutionarily-developed proxy for an indicator of well-being.

rehoot wrote: Now that I think of it, perhaps a principle of utility based in pleasure and pain reflects kingdomism (discrimination of things not in the animal kingdom) and will someday expand to include the well-being of all life (I'm making this up as I go!).

Other way round, IMO. It seems much easier to be an organism than suffers than one which has conscious desires.

but I typically associate [hedonism] with the stereotypical pursuit of immediate gratification.

That's what hedonism is generally used to mean, but I think in utilitarianism it just means any kind of happiness.

I'm pretty sure I was replying to someone at the beginning of this topic. What happened to their post?

That's what hedonism is generally used to mean, but I think in utilitarianism it just means any kind of happiness.

Perhaps there's a case for philosophers using a different term then? People often get the wrong impression when utilitarians call themselves 'hedonistic consequentialists' and the like; personally, I use the term 'subjective state consequentialism' instead, although I'm sure that's not a perfect descriptor either.

The view of hedonism as the stereotypical pursuit of immediate gratification is a view largely extended during the religious medieval ages as a form of easy critique to hedonism. There were advocates of easy happiness during the Greek splendor, but most notable hedonists such as Epicurus gave more importance to noble pleasures such as freedom or culture. Thus the view of hedonism as superficial is used as a straw man to easily dismiss it.

I've had a few philosopher friends who use the term the old way too, so maybe we should change it, even if they don't.

DanielLC wrote:The map is not the territory. Your beliefs and desires are incommensurate with reality. As such, trying to make reality map desires is nonsensical.

In addition to that, I notice that preference utilitarianism always seems to focus on changing reality, rather than changing preferences. I see no reason to do this. If there's six billion humans, and 10^53 kg of reality, change the humans.

Also, happiness seems more fundamental. Desires are just what make you happy.

I agree with you (and Mike Retriever). Preferentialism has certain implications that I, and most people, find intuitive and desirable but I don't understand the logic behind it. To me it seems clear that 'value' is an emotional concept and all of our preferences are emotionally based and what's inherently valuable is pleasure/happiness (emotional well being). Even if you make a distinction between "real happiness" and "shallow pleasure", I don't see how events matter if no one is emotionally affected by them (ie. being cremated, as you wished for, when you won't care what happens to your body when you're dead). I'm not convinced that hedonism is the theory of value that should be promoted, maybe hedonistic utilitarians should promote preference based utilitarianism or some hybrid ethical code (even if they privately disagree, it can be justified on consequentialist grounds), but as far as what's actually logical, I don't understand how people can 'decide' that preferentialism makes more sense than hedonism or vice versa just because it's more appealing.

As for why I don't prefer hedonism (though others here do), it is because I see it as self-destructive to ignore consideration of the long-term consequences of actions (e.g., smoking crack might be really fun right now, but the long-term consequences are definitely bad), and it seems that I have a future-orientated disposition.

This can so easily be countered by pointing out that smoking crack, in the *long run*, causes more distress than pleasure. Why do people take this argument seriously? 'Pleasure' refers as much to purely psychological states as it does to the sensory.