A. K. Chidgzey

“Pleasure is the first good. It is the beginning of every choice and every aversion. It is the absence of pain in the body and of troubles in the soul.” (Epicurus)

Hedonism is basically on the other end of the spectrum of what we talked about two weeks ago in asceticism. Where asceticism is the absolute denial of the body and self-interests, hedonism is the opposite, pursuing pleasure and self-interest above all else while actively avoiding anything that takes away from that pleasure.

The Greek word hédoné means pleasure, which is where we get hedonism from, and it’s probably best to understand it as an umbrella term that refers to various ethical theories, all of which place pleasure at the centre.

Aristippus of Cyrene (5th century BCE) – pleasure is the highest ethical good.

Epicurus argued for a toned down version of this, for pleasure through prudence.

Psychological hedonism – everything we do is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

The point to these ethical frameworks that are built around this idea of the pursuit of pleasure is that there is not necessarily a universal, objective, ethical or moral code. Rather, an action is either good or bad, moral or immoral, if the person performing the action gets pleasure from the act. That’s a huge generalization and this does have a whole bunch of qualifications.

Many proponents of hedonism would argue, for example, that true pleasure includes the pleasure of those around you. Think about it: laughter is contagious. When you hear someone else laugh, you often start laughing too. So the pursuit of pleasure also involves the pursuit of other people’s pleasure.

Also, drawing enjoyment from the pain of another person is false enjoyment, and is a psychological disorder. Most hedonists, though not all, say that hedonism does not equal sadism.

John Piper argued for Christian Hedonism in 1986 in his book ‘Desiring God.’ God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.

Westminster shorter confession – “The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” Piper argued that it should it be “to glorify God by enjoying him forever.”

Pursuing God and following his ways will always result in our greatest happiness. If you receive a gift, you feel honoured when they say, “it was my pleasure.” So with God, does he want our reluctant service, or does he want our joyful service?

There’s some logic here, but I have a couple of concerns.

First, this sounds a far too romanticised understanding of the Christian life. I don’t think Christian service or obedience does always result in our happiness. There can be a rightness to it, knowing that we are taking the correct path, but that doesn’t mean enjoyment.

Second, it’s too inward focused. How I feel in doing this.

This is rooted too much in the idea of a personal salvation. The Gospel message is thoroughly communal, a social movement that seeks to transform and change the world around us. Framing it in terms of personal pleasure is the wrong framework.

There is great pleasure and joy to be found in Christianity, but I don’t think that that pleasure is the primary objective.

Pleasure is good. It is part of the world. To deny the goodness of pleasure is to deny the goodness of the world. We have the capacity to take pleasure in the world around us and what’s in it. It’s almost an affront to God to not take advantage of that. If God gives us things to enjoy and gives us the ability to enjoy those things, maybe we should.

Humans are, in general, sexual beings. That’s not a universal statement, but by and large humans think about sex a lot and enjoy sex a lot. Because it is pleasurable. It’s fun.

I won’t get into sexual ethics, but that is a very important and significant topic that everyone really should think about. But when it is done appropriately and consensually, sex is a gift from God. And it’s not just reserved for procreation. You can do it simply to have fun and to draw close to this other person in a way which, I think, actually represents the Trinity in a way. That absolute closeness, intimacy, and oneness. It’s also more than just the physical act, it’s the thinking about it, the sensual appeal of it all. There is a reason why that old adage is true: sex does sell.

Now there is a discussion to be had about the ethics and appropriateness of sexual imagery, especially in the public. But my point here is that people enjoy sex.

But God also has pleasure. He takes pleasure in us, and in his creation. And that makes sense when we think that all good things come from God.

But is too much pleasure bad?

Possibly, but it depends how we get that pleasure. There is a risk of addiction. Overindulging can lead to an overreliance on whatever that is. And addictions to food, alcohol, drugs, sex, coffee can be devastating.

So a lot of the time, too much is bad. Too much food, too much alcohol, constantly avoiding difficult uncomfortable things.

I should also note that I think whatever you’re doing, make sure it’s legal, safe, healthy, and if there’s other people involved that it is consensual. Also consider the broader ethical issues. Over-indulging could mean that someone else is under-indulging. If you’ve got all the food, someone else is starving; if you’ve got all the money locked up in investments and banks, someone else is struggling.

As I mentioned in the episode on asceticism, I am a fan of the Stoic virtue of discipline and the Buddhist middle way, somewhere between absolute self-denial and over-indulgence. Sometimes things do require sacrifice and some level of self-denial, Jesus did call us to deny the self, pick up our cross, and follow him. That doesn’t mean we have to spend our lives in misery. But on the other end we should avoid over-indulgence. And so this is where discipline comes in; having mastery over the self. And I think these are thoroughly Biblical ideas as well.

I think there is a bit of a flip side to hedonism that makes hedonism as an ethical principle self-contradictory. In life there are lots of little, uncomfortable things that, in the long, improve our lives and decrease anything that brings us displeasure or pain.

Adherents of hedonism would probably add various qualifications. Such as the one that I did just then, about embracing the smaller less-pleasure things to avoid a much larger displeasureable thing, and so overall, our lives tip in favour of pleasure.

But the more qualifications you add, the further you stray from the central principles, and I don’t think this is actually hedonistic, it’s just sensible.

I think a problem with hedonism is that it reduces morality to feeling. If it feels good or not. And I think that’s a rather limited way of thinking about how we should live an ethical life.

My main issue with hedonism as an ethical principle is the pursuit of pleasure for pleasure’s sake. I think pleasure accompanies good things, but I think we should be doing those things because they are the right thing to do, with the pleasure or enjoyment that we draw from it a secondary concern. An added bonus.

But sometimes good, right, moral things are accompanied by pain or sacrifice. But they are still the good, right, moral thing to do.