Obliged to pleasure

[francois]

It's generally accepted that one is morally obliged to help someone who is in danger or distress if he has the capacity. And this obligation often translates into legal obligation in some states. For example, if one is being raped, or has been in a traffic accident, bystanders must do something, such as call for help. If they don't, they face legal penalties.

The obligation is easy to understand in terms of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism mandates that one's actions should aim to maximize overall utility. By calling the police in the case of a car accident, you could potentially save someone's life. In doing so, you've made it possible for that person to continue life and experience pleasure. Not only that, but you've saved that person's family members from a lot of displeasure. The person may have even had a huge family, saving a large number of people from a great amount of displeasure. So the simple act of dialing the police has created a whole lot of utility and it was at minimal cost to you. This disparity between cost and the utility attained forms the basis of the moral obligation. The greater the disparity, the greater the obligation.

The opposite is also true. The smaller the disparity, the smaller the obligation. Let's say there was a car accident and you didn't have a cell phone and the only thing you could do to help would be to drag someone out of a burning car which could explode at any moment. The potential for saved utility is great, but so is the cost. The judge likely wouldn't give you grief about that. He'd be more like, "yeah, that's what I would have done too, buddy."

In my view, pleasure and displeasure are the same thing, except negatives of one another--like wealth and debt. The ability to delay gratification is an important human capacity and it has much to do with one's success in life. Basically what it is, is facing displeasure directly in order to get more pleasure later. It's the difference between Cyranaic hedonism and Epicurean hedonism. Cyraniac hedonism is the heroin addict who gets pleasure quickly and intensely, but then loses it and ends up having a short life. Epicurean hedonism is more disciplined, contrived and, in the end, results in more utility. Our lives and our relationships are heavily based on trading displeasure and pleasure. They do appear to be interchangeable--two sides of the same coin.

So if pleasure and displeasure are really the same thing, why isn't there a similar moral obligation to give pleasure to people? Let's say you have some special gift or skill. Like, maybe you make incredibly good peanut butter cookies or are particularly adept at oral sex. Because you're gifted, producing these things isn't particularly costly to you, but they produce inordinate amounts of utility for others. You're working with a high disparity between cost incurred by you, which is low, and attainable utility for others, which is high. Because of this high disparity, you have a great moral obligation to do these things.

 

[visceral_instinct]

It's not about pleasure exactly, though.

You don't need cookies. You do need to be saved from a car wreck, at least if you're not suicidal.

I think it comes down to need vs. want.

If you're a gifted scientist who can easily make a vaccine for AIDS, sure, you have a moral obligation to make one.

But cookies? I don't think so.

 

[francois]

But what if they were cookies that tasted so good, that you would easily trade having cancer for having just one bite?

 

[visceral_instinct]

Is there a need for them, or just a want?

Am I entitled to anabolic steroids because I'd really, really love to be heavier?

 

[francois]

Is there a need for them, or just a want?

Am I entitled to anabolic steroids because I'd really, really love to be heavier?

Nobody "needs" anything. It's just that if they don't get what they "need," they die, and that's not good for pleasure, since you can't get it when you're dead.

If anabolic steroids resulted in more pleasure, overall, then yeah, you'd have a moral obligation to yourself to do them. But realistically, they'd give you all sorts of problems. They might result in poorer health and a shorter life and a worse quality of life. In that case it wouldn't really be worth it.

 

[birch]

It's not about pleasure exactly, though.

You don't need cookies. You do need to be saved from a car wreck, at least if you're not suicidal.

I think it comes down to need vs. want.

If you're a gifted scientist who can easily make a vaccine for AIDS, sure, you have a moral obligation to make one.

But cookies? I don't think so.

the clue in this strange thread is he mentioned an obligation to give oral sex if the person is good at it? how is that determined? it's not even realistic but subjective. he is in a around about way trying to justify (giving but especially "taking") based on pleasure.

i think this thread is trying to justify predation and that what satisfies was the obligation of the victim. reread the op and it's very weird.

by insinuating that it's an obligation and pleasure and displeasure are the same, it's just veiled.

Nobody "needs" anything. It's just that if they don't get what they "need," they die, and that's not good for pleasure, since you can't get it when you're dead.

If anabolic steroids resulted in more pleasure, overall, then yeah, you'd have a moral obligation to yourself to do them. But realistically, they'd give you all sorts of problems. They might result in poorer health and a shorter life and a worse quality of life. In that case it wouldn't really be worth it.
If anabolic steroids resulted in more pleasure, overall, then yeah, you'd have a moral obligation to yourself to do them. But realistically, they'd give you all sorts of problems. They might result in poorer health and a shorter life and a worse quality of life. In that case it wouldn't really be worth it.

this post is creepy. the first half does not even make sense. wants and needs are not the same. what people often construe as needs are actually wants because they view any urge or inclination as a need in thier mind.

But what if they were cookies that tasted so good, that you would easily trade having cancer for having just one bite?

no one here is naive to believe that you are talking about cookies. it's a ruse.

if your neighbor's wife gives so-called good oral sex, she is obligated to perform that on you or the whole neighborhood? if someone views you as an object of pleasure, you are obligated to fulfill that in whatever way they deem? if someone views your mouth or anus as an object of pleasure, it's okay if they penetrate it with their stuff and you are obligated? according to your logic, it should be okay as long as they don't physically harm you as in breaking your bones which is also a ruse since for one party, breaking your bones may actually be pleasurable to them. they can justify their desires are more important than your life since there are plenty of people in the world who are born daily to replace you if you die or doctors to fix you.

please.. this is in the ethics thread, so we know you are trying to justify anything that gives pleasure or by the taking of it by calling it an obligation.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Nobody "needs" anything. It's just that if they don't get what they "need," they die, and that's not good for pleasure, since you can't get it when you're dead.

If anabolic steroids resulted in more pleasure, overall, then yeah, you'd have a moral obligation to yourself to do them. But realistically, they'd give you all sorts of problems. They might result in poorer health and a shorter life and a worse quality of life. In that case it wouldn't really be worth it.

But there is a difference between "needs" and wants.

If I don't get cookies, I won't die. I'll be mildly pissed off, but I can go get pleasure in plenty of other ways.

If I don't get air, I will be dead.

the clue in this strange thread is he mentioned an obligation to give oral sex if the person is good at it? how is that determined? it's not even realistic but subjective. he is in a around about way trying to justify (giving but especially "taking") based on pleasure.

I think he was just indulging in some humor, lol.

 

[francois]

no one here is naive to believe that you are talking about cookies. it's a ruse.

A ruse, it's not. You guys are thinking too literally. Cookies and oral sex were just two random pleasurable things that I thought of. You could say that I'm making a logical argument as to why we should 'be excellent' to each other. There's a lot of potential for blissful existence if we recognize it and open ourselves to reciprocating pleasure.

if your neighbor's wife gives so-called good oral sex, she is obligated to perform that on you or the whole neighborhood? if someone views you as an object of pleasure, you are obligated to fulfill that in whatever way they deem? if someone views your mouth or anus as an object of pleasure, it's okay if they penetrate it with their stuff and you are obligated? according to your logic, it should be okay as long as they don't physically harm you as in breaking your bones which is also a ruse since for one party, breaking your bones may actually be pleasurable to them. they can justify their desires are more important than your life since there are plenty of people in the world who are born daily to replace you if you die or doctors to fix you.

If you don't want to do it, then submitting would be a great cost to you. And thus, it would be an immoral action.

please.. this is in the ethics thread, so we know you are trying to justify anything that gives pleasure or by the taking of it by calling it an obligation.

lol, I like your use of 'we', as if it's assumed that everyone agrees with you. Nah, but seriously. Say you have a pair of tickets to a concert that you're planning to go to. But something happens and you can't go. I'm saying you have a moral obligation (albeit, not a great one) to give the tickets to a friend who really wants to go. Thus, utility isn't wasted. Or you could sell the tickets to someone, in which case, the utility is returned to you.