Quick post on why I’m a hedonic utilitarian. Two basic points:
(Most) Preferences Come from Hedonic States
Why do you desire sweet food?
Is it because this is some innate preference of human beings that they just happen to have? So if someone denied liking sugar you would just accept that, because preferences are the basis of morality and should not be questioned?
No. It’s because sugar tastes good. It is enjoyable, in the moment, to taste the sugar. This hedonic state of experiencing the rush from the sugar is real, and it guides our preferences.
Similarly we can ask: why do you hate being poked? Could someone convince you that they actually enjoyed being poked?
No, because being poked feels bad. There is a visceral hedonic state attached to being poked that serves as the basis for our preferences.
I honestly don’t understand how anybody who has ever done any sort of drug is a preference utilitarian. Drugs alter an underlying hedonic state and attempts to shoehorn this into a universal preference for humans to be on drugs are so clearly backward.
…And Those That Don’t Are Irrational
Some preferences don’t come from hedonic states. Those preferences are irrational and should not be respected.
Take fear. Oftentimes people will fear things disproportionate to how bad they actually are. Humans will run from spiders, wince at scary movies, and buy guns to protect themselves from insignificant crime.
This is plainly irrational. To be clear, there is some hedonic state attached to fear making it viscerally bad, and insofar as that is true it should be prevented. But if relaxation techniques or drugs are a solution to make these feelings go away, then that is a sufficient solution. If spiders are sentient and killing the spider is painful for the spider, but a breathing exercise makes the human’s fear go away with no harm, we should always pick the latter.
Similar things can be said about drug addiction, and Stockholm syndrome, and a million other clearly irrational desires. Brian Tomasik argues that there is a “meta-desire” for drug addicts not to be on drugs. But you have to ask yourself: why are you second-guessing this person’s desires? Is it because you know humans have a universal desire not to be addicted to things? So can we just second-guess people’s desires based on any concocted universal human desire? What if I argue that humans universally desire shooting things, a meta-desire that doesn’t turn into a proper-desire until they get behind a gun?
No, drug addiction is bad because it involves negative hedonic state. A drug addict should get help, no matter how much they don’t want it, because it is better for them, hedonically. “Meta desires” are a confused concept coming from positive hedonic states that, when we are consumed by the irrational desire, we don’t realize are better for us.
So if hedonism is real, what is it, precisely? How can we measure it? When does sentience occur?
That’s a problem for philosophy of mind, and I don’t know too much there. I’ll just say that if brain MRIs and thermostats cause you to conclude that sugar doesn’t taste good, consider that you have gone too far down the rationality rabbit hole.