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.

at

3 comments:

  1. Tim LacyJune 30, 2008 at 2:29 PM

    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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alexander R PrussJuly 4, 2008 at 2:56 PM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter LupuJuly 8, 2008 at 6:43 AM

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

    peter

    ReplyDelete