Can morality and hedonism walk together? How?

>>1692230
No

>>1692230
No. Don't be stupid. Do not pass this stupidity onto others.

>>1692230
>dude just throw columns at everything lmao
Classic architecture everyone.

>>1692258
Shit taste everyone

>>1692291
Didn't say I don't like it

>>1692230
No. Hedonism+Morality means that morality is making everyone happy all at once, so that means that if some kid is starving in Africa it's everyone's fault for not doing anything about it and it goes into all that Banality of Evil nonsense. It means that if one person isn't happy then no one can be.

>>1692324
Making everyone happy all at once is the morality ideal, but if your criteria of working morality is that moral ideal being reached, than no morality works because in practice problems exist for any kind of a moral believes, except the most apathetic ones.

>>1692258
Imagine ancient Greeks or Romans seeing Neoclassical architecture
>You guys need to paint this shit!
Europeans were overawed by the bleached bones of Classical civilization and decided to imitate them.

I'd you're talking about Epicurean style hedonism focused on living simply and pursuing higher pleasures like friendship and removing things that seem pleasurable but end up causing you pain, then yes.

>>1692230
Classical Hedonism was much easier to gel with morality than moder living.

Remember, Hedonism was pointing out 'muh spooks' centuries before Stirner. They essentially advocated a NEET lifestyle. All you really need is some friends, somewhere to chill with your bros, and enough food to keep you alive. That is when people are most happiest, so that is the highest good. Sharing food with people is cool in this system because holy crap, sharing food with people and helping them feels pretty great in the deep and lasting sense, because get this, social creatures! Wild.

Meanwhile shitty people are rarely happy people. People in pursuit of power, drugs and sexual thrill rarely, if ever, achieve deep and abiding happiness, and when they do, it is almost always after they give that shit up.

File: Epicurus_bust2.jpg (86KB, 590x1000px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 590x1000px

>>1692473
My Garden companion

>>1692230
I had a good balance in college

>>1692489
You want to get cheese, bro?

>>1692531
Sure, let's get some simple lentil soup too.

>>1692600
I can't eat Lentils bro, they give me seizures :(

>>1692602
We'll just bake some fresh bread and have some wine to go with the cheese then, my friend. :)

>>1692230
Yes.
People that do "good for the sake of good" are actually doing it because it makes them feel good.
And there's nothing wrong with that.

>>1692609
>Fresh Bread
>Wine
Yeah, that's seizure town. Perhaps, you could have the wine and bread, and I will be content with cheese and companionship.

>>1692614
As long as there's good companionship, food is secondary, friend.

>>1692230
That's literally what utilitarianism is, a merging of consequentialism and hedonism.

>>1692622
Nah, Utiltitarianism is just shit that can't into Ethics, bro.

File: 1385208271184.jpg (7KB, 125x123px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 125x123px

>>1692230
No. On the contrary

A TRAIN CART is hurtling towards five people tied to a rail track. These five people are all wearing shirts that says .Hedonist..

You stand next to a lever, that when pulled, will divert the train to another track with but a single person. This person is wearing a shirt that says 'Moralist'.

Do you pull the lever and save the latter, or do you leave it and kill the former?

>>1692648
I will kill moralist NEET, five people at least hang out with each other, nobody will miss a one guy.

>>1692636
Thanks for the response

>>1692678
You're welcome. I hope you have a good day.

>>1692666
Satan, pls
>five people at least hang out with each other,
No, no, it's just a coincidence they had the same shirt!

In fact, the person who tied both track's members there, that was the person who put those shirts on them! Nobody knows anyone there. However, they were all polled before being tied to the tracks against their will.

>>1692230
What do you mean by morality in this sentence? How are we supposed to know what you consider moral? Are you not aware that hedonism has its own set of ethics and morals?

>Can my morals and hedonistic morals walk together?
Is essentially what you're asking.

The answer to that is probably no if you've got to ask.

File: Good point but.jpg (62KB, 521x593px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 521x593px

>>1692230
Yes. The only real evil in this world is Puritanism, which works to demonize what basically amounts to the "Devil of The Week". In the 20's it was alcohol, in the 50's it was Elvis, in the 70's it was drugs, in the 80's it was "devil music", 90's it was video games, and now it's "hurtful speech". It basically stands directly at odds with liberty man.

>>1692612
>And there's nothing wrong with that
It depends what they think is good.

Hedonism is an ethical system you dipshit