Saturday, June 28, 2008

Hedonism

Here is an argument:

  1. A character trait aimed at producing what is always intrinsically good is not a vice. (Premise)
  2. A tendency to Schadenfreude is a character trait aimed at producing pleasure (at the sufferings of others). (Premise)
  3. A tendency to Schadenfreude is a vice. (Premise)
  4. Therefore, pleasure is not always intrinsically good.

3 comments:

Tim Lacy said...

What of the element of choice, or of one bad choice (toward Schadenfreude) that has reproduced itself as a kind of accident?

Perhaps the "tendency to" in your second premise causes this to violate the four-term fallacy? Just a thought. - TL

Alexander R Pruss said...

TL:

A bad choice that has reproduced itself as a kind of accident can still be a vice. Alas, vices are like that.

I use "tendency" in the same sense in steps 2 and 3, so I don't think I have a fallacy here.

Peter Lupu said...

The argument only supports the following conclusion:
(intentionally?) producing pleasure, at the sufferings of others, is not always intrinsically good.

peter