A Comparative Analysis Of Philippa Foot's View Of Hedonism

Hedonism is a theory of morality. There are several popular philosophers who support hedonism; some of whom offer their own interpretation of the theory. This paper will focus on the Epicurean view. Epicurus, a Greek philosophers born in 341 B.C., generated a significant measure of controversy amongst laymen and philosophical circles in regards to his view of the good life. Philosophers whom teachings predate Epicurus’ tended to focus on the question of “How can human beings live a good, morally sound, life?” Epicurus ruffled feathers and ultimately expanded the scope of philosophy by asking “What makes people happy?”

At first glance these to two questions may appear as opposite sides of the same coin. However, a closer analysis reveals they

One such opponent to the theory is Philippa Foot a contemporary philosopher. She presents the argument that sustained happiness is not the end all to a good life. Foot reached this conclusion after attending a talk by a doctor who described how “perfectly happy” his patient was after a lobotomy. Foot argued that if unfettered happiness was at the crux of a good life, then a lobotomy should be an excellent option for all human beings. To be more precise in regard to her argument she proposed parents want what’s best for their children, a statement few people would argue with. If Hedonism is true, then parents want sustained happiness for their children. Yet, it would be absurd to think of a parent seeking a lobotomy for a mentally well-adjusted

Considering the definition of Hedonism, which was outlined in the beginning of the second paragraph, The Epicurean perception of Hedonism reflects the notion that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends. That is to say, things are desirable for the inherent pleasure in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. I’d like to draw attention to two points within the definition “promotion of pleasure and prevention of pain”. Assuming the parent is a mature adult, they know from life experience that many uncomfortable circumstances produce happiness as an outcome. This being a fact, a parent’s wish for a child’s sustained happiness automatically accounts for some measure of pain and uncomfortable circumstances. The parent’s goal would be to minimize discomfort not eliminate it all together. Sustained misery is what a “normal” parent would have their child avoid not temporary pain and comfort that leads to happiness. Furthermore, if hedonism is true the parent wants happiness for themselves, as well as their child and no “normal” parent would be happy approving an unnecessary lobotomy. The parent would subject themselves to sustained misery having had permitted their child to be robbed of their natural senses. Not to mention, one purpose of having children is to pass along genetic information to the next generation, lobotomized offspring would unfit to continue procreation.