Why, according to Nagel, is the fact of death so troubling, aside from the loss of possible goods that it involves?

In addition to the loss of relationships and the inability to achieve our goals is the fact that our unique perspectives on the universe will be lost forever. 

What, according to Nagel, is the “most perplexing feature of our attitude toward death”?

We are so anxious about not existing in the future, but we’re not anxious about not having existed in the past. This puzzles him because he is assuming that what’s troubling about death is the nonexistence of our distinct point of view. 

Why might this attitude not really be so perplexing?

Nagel is assuming we’re worried about our nonexistence of a distinct point of view being lost after death. So we might just say that we’re not worried about our future distinct point of view not existing because if we did then we would care about our past nonexistence. 

How might a philosopher who does not believe in God solve Nagel’s problem of the meaning of life?

A philosopher who does not believe in God might say that Nagel is wrong to assume that the objective point of view is normative for the subjective point of view in the way he supposes. 

What inescapable fact are Substance, Shadow, and Spirit all responding to?

We are all going to die. Death is inevitable. 

What is Substance’s response? Shadow’s? Spirit’s?

Substance says we should enjoy life as fully as possible. Shadow says we should do good that will outlive us. Spirit says we should stop worrying and thinking about it and should just go with the flow and live in the moment.

What criticism does Spirit make of Substance’s response? Is this criticism decisive? Why or why not?

If you drink all the time you’ll die young so Substance’s advice is not sound. No it’s not because the drink was simply a metaphor or symbol of pleasure and you won’t necessarily die young for “enjoying too much.” It is not necessarily true that enjoyment is destructive. Substance is not advocating heavy drinking. Spirit’s criticism is too radical for Substance’s metaphor.

What criticism does Spirit make of Shadow’s response? Is this criticism decisive? Why or why not?

Spirit says that doing good things will not lead to being praised for it. It’s not decisive because Shadow was not just saying that you should do good things so you’ll look good but because the good you do will outlive you.

What criticism of Spirit might both Substance and Shadow make?

He isn’t giving a genuine solution or answer to the question or problem. 

What is hedonism as a general theory of value?

Pleasure is the only thing that has value for its own sake. 

Define the notion of instrumental value. 

Instrumental value is the value that something has as a means to something else. 

Define the notion of intrinsic value using the notion of instrumental value.

            Intrinsic value is non-instrumental value. 

Identify two different senses to the term “intrinsic value”?

One sense says that “intrinsic value” is when something has value for its own sake, or non-instrumental value. Another sense says that “intrinsic value” is the value that something has in itself, not in relation to anything else, or non-relational value. 

Is non-instrumental value necessarily non-relational?

No because we can imagine something that has value for its own sake but only because someone values it for its own sake. We can imagine something like pleasure that has value for its own sake but only because someone values it for its own sake. If something has value only because someone values it, then it only has relational value. But since they value it for its own sake, then it has non-instrumental value. 

What is the difference between hedonism as a theory of welfare and hedonism as a general theory of value?  Does the former entail the latter? Why or why not?   

The difference between the two theories: hedonism as a theory of welfare says only pleasure is only thing that is non-instrumentally good for us.  Hedonism as a general theory of value says pleasure is the only thing that is non-instrumentally good. The former does not entail the latter because pleasure can be instrumentally good even if it’s not good for us. 

Could hedonism be true in the welfare sense, but not in the second sense?  

Yes, because there could be something that is good in and of itself that is not good for anyone.   We can imagine a planet that is good (beautiful, lush) but it is not good for anyone.   If that planet is good, then hedonism as a general theory of value is false.  However, it can still be good, even though not pleasing to you or anyone. Other things may be non-instrumentally good, just not for us. 

What is the difference between psychological hedonism and philosophical hedonism as theory of welfare?  Does either entail the other?  Why or why not? 

Psychological hedonism is the view that we only act when we believe that we will gain some pleasure or avoid some pain, that the only thing that motivates humans is thoughts of pleasure and pain. Philosophical hedonism says the only thing that is intrinsically good for us is pleasure. No, neither entails the other because even if we’re only motivated by thoughts of pleasure and pain there might be other things such as duty or desires that are good for us. 

What is the standard philosophical objection to psychological hedonism?  

When we think about our motivations there are other things that motivate us besides thoughts of pleasure or pain. People can be motivated by feelings of duty or love, or wanting do something that will bring them no pleasure but will benefit someone else. Also, just because pleasure came from an action does not mean the person did it for the pleasure.

What kind of life is best or happiest, according to Epicurus?

According to Epicurus, the best life is the most pleasant life one can lead.

What does pleasure consist in, according to Epicurus? Is this a good analysis? Why or why not?

According to Epicurus, pleasure consists in the absence of pain. This is not a good analysis because one can experience pain and pleasure at the same time, and one can also be in a state where they experience neither pain nor pleasure. Both of these states seem possible and so pleasure cannot simply be the absence of pain.

What valid empirical generalization might lie behind Epicurus’s analysis of pleasure?

When we aren’t feeling any negative emotion or experiencing a negative circumstance, we tend to be happy. The default setting is to enjoy life. 

Should we fear death, according to Epicurus? Why or why not?

The only thing we should worry about would be pain and since there is no pain in death we shouldn’t worry about it. 

If hedonism is true, does it follow that there is no reason to worry about death? Why or why not?

No because we will lose the opportunities for pleasure and hedonism says that pleasure is good. 

Consider all the reasons there might be for you to regret your own death, apart from its negative effect on others. Does this exercise seem to you to support hedonism? Why or why not? Explain.

What is the termination thesis and why does it seem to conflict with common sense?

The termination thesis states that we cease to exist after we permanently die. We seem to talk about people existing after they’re dead. 

What kind of life is the most conducive to pleasure, according to Epicurus? Does he recommend a life of wild sensuality and extravagant luxury? Why or why not?

He recommends the life of a philosopher because it is quiet, reserved, and you don’t have to worry about anything and the activity of reasoning and reflecting is the most pleasurable. He does not a life of wild sensuality and extravagant luxury because a life of wild sensuality and extravagant luxury has some pleasure will more likely lead to pain for others or ourselves and he defines pleasure as the absence of pain so we should not do anything that leads to pain. 

What is utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is a theory of conduct that says we should always act in a way that produces the most happiness. It is also called the greatest happiness principle. 

What is the difference between utilitarianism and egoism?

Egoism is the view that we should do what makes us the happiest. Utilitarianism is the view that we should do what will result in the greatest amount of happiness overall. 

What is hedonistic utilitarianism?

According to it, we should always act to bring about the greatest amount of pleasure because happiness is pleasure. 

Explain why if utilitarianism is true and happiness is pleasure, then hedonistic utilitarianism is true?

Utilitarianism is the view that we should always act to produce the greatest amount of happiness overall. Hedonistic utilitarianism says we should always act to bring about the greatest amount of pleasure because happiness is pleasure. 

What is the (intrinsic) desire-satisfaction theory of individual welfare and how does it differ from hedonism?

This theory says getting something you want for its own sake, even if its not pleasure, is good for you. Whereas hedonism says the only thing that’s good for you is pleasure. 

Why might someone prefer the desire-satisfaction theory to the hedonistic theory as a theory of individual welfare?

According to hedonism, pleasure is the only thing that’s intrinsically good for us. However, accomplishing worthwhile goals can be good for you even if they don’t give you pleasure. It seems that what’s good for you should be what you think is important, not only pleasure.  Some people feel there are things that are good for them apart from whether or not it gives us any pleasure. 

What is preference-utilitarianism?

According to preference utilitarianism we should always act to produce the greatest amount of desire-satisfaction overall. 

Explain why if utilitarianism is true and happiness is desire-satisfaction, then preference-utilitarianism is also true. 

Utilitarianism says we should always act in a way that will produce the most happiness over all and happiness is desire-satisfaction, then we should always act in a way that will produce the most desire-satisfaction and that is preference-utilitarianism.

Explain why if utilitarianism is true and happiness is pleasure, then hedonistic utilitarianism is true?

Utilitarianism is the view that we should always act to produce the greatest amount of happiness overall. Hedonistic utilitarianism says we should always act to bring about the greatest amount of pleasure because happiness is pleasure. 

Why might someone think that hedonism is a “swinish doctrine”? How does Mill respond to this objection?

According to hedonism, what’s good for pigs is what’s good for us – pleasure. Mill responds to this objection by making a distinction between two kinds of pleasure, which he calls lower and higher pleasures.  He says that only humans are capable of higher pleasures because they require us to use our higher capacities. He does not disagree with hedonism, but he thinks that higher pleasures have more value than lower pleasures. 

Define the notion of a higher pleasure. Give examples. What are the higher pleasure capabilities? What makes them “higher”?

A higher pleasure comes from exercising our higher human capacities, such as reading, studying philosophy, or solving puzzles, or painting. They involve greater brain capacity, complexity, and mental operations. This makes them “higher.”

What, according to Mill, justifies us in believing that higher pleasures are more valuable – more worthy of being promoted – than lower pleasures?

According to Mill, this belief is justified because almost everyone who is capable of feeling both lower and higher pleasures would agree that higher pleasures are more valuable. 

What does Bentham mean by claiming that “pushpin (kid’s game) is as good as poetry”? Does Mill agree? Why or why not?

Bentham means that any two pleasures of equal intensity and duration have the same value. Mill does not agree because higher pleasures have greater value than lower pleasures even when at an equal intensity and duration. 

How does the example of the dissipated aristocrat pose a challenge to this justification? How does Mill address this challenge? What is unsatisfying about this response? How might Mill’s position be reformulated to meet the objection more successfully?

The example of the dissipated aristocrat poses a challenge because you have people who are fully capable of higher pleasures, but consistently choose the lower pleasures. Mill addresses the challenge by saying some people can’t achieve higher pleasure. It’s unsatisfying because one should enjoy the higher pleasures more than the lower pleasures. His position might be reformulated by saying that lower pleasures might be more intense, but higher pleasures are more valuable.