A statement about you.

[Lantyssa]

And I definitely don't think liking cars and girls makes one a hedonist. I mean, what happened to just simply liking cars and girls? Why is it deeper than that? And why shouldn't they be liked? A car is a machine to travel fast in, preferably faster, preferably with comfortable furniture, and preferably with the marvel of air conditioning. It's exterior can also function as art. There's nothing hedonistic about understanding and appreciating good engineering and art. In fact, that's downright noble as far as "higher purposes" go. The greatest, "higher purposed" minds in history, be it Da Vinci, Newton, or Archimedes would think that cars kick ass in all kinds of ways. 

Seeing the mechanics as a marvel is what would awe those thinkers.

Getting a rise out of how sexy a machine the car is with its sleek lines, heated bucked seats and all leather interior... is hedonism.  You're a little to close to the truth to see that.  As Llava says, nothing wrong with that if you know it is what you want, it's just not for everyone.

[Engels]

The idea behind the epithet is that you put things above people, but that need not be the case, of course. Those interested are encouraged to read Epicurus and the roman philosopher, along the same vein, Lucretius.

[Sky]

I don't do drugs or anything but I might just do blow off a hooker's ass in this hypothetical situation. I don't give a shit about car's I'd probably have a limo though. Gotta fit the image. As for booze? Sure. For awhile until I got tired of it.

As for the rest of you, you're either liars or pussies.

What if you've already done blow off hooker's asses and had limos? For a while until you got tired of it. Just sayin'.

[Llava]

Not to knock the basic gist of your post, but I never liked the word hedonist. It doesn't make any sense to me to have a label for liking material things when the entire universe that every creature interacts with is, as far as I can tell, material.

That's not what it means.  Hedonism means pleasure is not only a goal, it's THE goal and also the morally right thing to pursue.

And as far as sex goes, until someone calls a dog a shallow hedonist, then I don't think they should call a human one either. Doesn't prevent one from ignoring a higher purpose either.. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Beethoven, Einstein, Martin Luther King? They all had the company of many women.

Your second point there is valid.  The first one... not so much.  It's rare that you can justify human action by using animals as precedent, or else we could justify murdering someone who tried to take your job as well as rape.  You wouldn't call a dog a shallow hedonist because it doesn't have the capability to understand anything else.  A person who acts like a dog certainly isn't admirable, though.  Dogs don't think, they have no reasons for doing what they do except for impulse, and no concept of long-term consequences.  They can get away with that, humans can't.

[Roac]

Your second point there is valid.  The first one... not so much.  It's rare that you can justify human action by using animals as precedent, or else we could justify murdering someone who tried to take your job as well as rape.  You wouldn't call a dog a shallow hedonist because it doesn't have the capability to understand anything else.  A person who acts like a dog certainly isn't admirable, though.  Dogs don't think, they have no reasons for doing what they do except for impulse, and no concept of long-term consequences.  They can get away with that, humans can't.

Ability and power create responsibility.  Attempts to abdicate responsibility while retaining both the former items tends to be viewed as despicable.  Dogs lack much of either; the typical person does not.  A typical person plus incredible wealth even less so.  Live life accordingly.

[Llava]

Ability and power create responsibility.  Attempts to abdicate responsibility while retaining both the former items tends to be viewed as despicable.  Dogs lack much of either; the typical person does not.  A typical person plus incredible wealth even less so.  Live life accordingly.

 

From here on, I'm using the star to mean "This." or "Word."

[stray]

Dogs can and do, in fact, think. 

[edit] Da Vinci, being the artist that he was, would appreciate the curves on at least some cars. I doubt that Newton would ignore such a thing too... If he appreciated art at all. Which he probably did. Seeing that he wasn't a dumbass.

Or what I'm saying is, what does appreciating beauty and design have to do with "shallow pleasure seeking"? Does that mean that anyone who's captivated by the Mona Lisa is a hedonist too? Are you a hedonist for liking sunsets?

As far as sex and morality goes, I've yet to see what the moral issue is there. I even have religious leanings myself -- but that is one thing I can't wrap my head around. As far as, say, the bible is concerned, "laws" concerning sex were right next to laws on property. Because it was a law on property. That was the "moral" slant of it back then -- women were property. Stealing that property was wrong.

Nowadays, the idea of owning anyone is pretty much universally realized as being fucking absurd. The basis of the original law is thrown out along with laws on slaves. Yet, people still cling to the idea of "sexual morality" on some "taboo" level. You ask them what equates it with other very understandable laws, like murder, and they can never say. It's just bad just because.

That isn't to say that fidelity to a mate isn't to be desired. If you're hurting someone, then of course it's bad. That has nothing to do with enjoying the pleasure of sex though. The crime there is breaking someone's trust. Not sex per se. Besides that, what if the two marriage partners adopted some sort of swinger ideal? How does fidelity become an issue then? Why is that a moral issue for anyone else's concern except theirs? And don't get me started on pre-marital sex -- there isn't even anyone to be faithful to at that point.

[LK]

I follow a Hedonist lifestyle on the advice of the Dali Llama.  "The purpose of life is to be happy."  Probably skewing that the wrong way, but, eh.

Note to any future hedonists: it works better if you have a lot of money.

[Roac]

I follow a Hedonist lifestyle on the advice of the Dali Llama.  "The purpose of life is to be happy."  Probably skewing that the wrong way, but, eh.

Note to any future hedonists: it works better if you have a lot of money.

Your first two sentences do not compute with your last one. 

[Nerf]

Makes perfect sense to me.
Money may not buy happiness, but being poor causes alot of fucking misery.

[Yegolev]

Money makes things easier.  Doesn't really make you happy.

[Sky]

Money may not buy happiness, but being poor causes alot of fucking misery.

[Nebu]

As one of my favorite quotes points out...

Money can't buy happiness; it can, however, rent it.

[Roac]

Makes perfect sense to me.
Money may not buy happiness, but being poor causes alot of fucking misery.

I've been poor most of my life.  Also, not miserable.  I think Yegolev has it right; money opens up options in your life.  If, however, you are using money for self-gratification and calling that happiness, you're missing the point.  At least if what you're after is *at all* what the Dali Llama is referring to.  If it's not... well, again, then those sentences I point out don't add up.

[stray]

I'm poor and happy as well. I'm with you there. I gotta say though, I'd probably be happier if I was rich. Money provides more mobility. To me, that's better than being stationary. It's a big world... I'd prefer to see as much of it as I can.

Under the list of things that sparked this thread (cars, girls, and booze), cars are the only thing that would require money. Cars don't necessarily make me happy either. I just think they're cool. The attention of women can be had by just recognizing your opportunities. Alcohol can be had by mooching, crashing parties, and being buddy buddy with bartenders.

[Megrim]

As far as the three original criteria are concerned, i wouldn't bother. If i had that much money, i suspect that the first thing i would do, would be to set-up retirement for my (small) family, who don't require much anyway. Then i would sink the rest of the money into trying to unfuck the world.

For myself, i might buy an old castle somewhere in Ireland or Scotland, and retire there eventually. Probably buy a dog.

[Daeven]

Did I mention I'd fly women to my island on a private jet?

Maybe I should have.

Here ya go.

http://www.cbbain.com/PropertyDetail.aspx?GroupID=36902143&ListingID=9078072

Seems a good place to start.

[Llava]

Dogs can and do, in fact, think. 

Well yeah, but try explaining ethics to one.

As far as sex and morality goes, I've yet to see what the moral issue is there. I even have religious leanings myself -- but that is one thing I can't wrap my head around.

I don't think there's anything necessarily immoral about casual sex, but my personal feelings on the matter don't allow for it.  While I won't condemn anyone who participates in casual sex, as long as they do so with responsibility, I ask that they understand that it's "just not for me".  In fact, odd coincidence that this subject comes up, I had dinner with an ex-girlfriend Sunday night.  We're both single, and she suggested that we start a no-strings sex arrangement.  Flattered though I was (because I know it wasn't from desperation- she's a very attractive girl, she can easily find men willing to help with that), I turned her down because I don't do casual sex.  What's more confusing for most people is that I am as hardcore an atheist as you can be.

I do have reasoning, and I'll share that in just a moment, but to be honest it took me a while and a good amount of research to articulate that reasoning.  Yet, I've always felt uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with someone about whom you don't particularly care.  This goes back to my belief that, while our morals may change as we hear persuasive arguments one way or the other, for the most part it's an unconscious matter involving instincts and socialization.  I was not, I should mention, brought up in a religious house, and my brother DOES participate in casual sex, so I'm not even sure it had to do with socialization so much as I just received some sort of crazy "monogamy" gene.  Honestly, I can't say.

But to the point, Immanuel Kant has a rule regarding not using people as means to an end, but rather treating people as ends in themselves.  I'll illustrate that with a quick example: The common case given to show this principle is the runaway train car.  The car has 5 people in it and the tracks lead off a cliff.  If they go off that cliff, they'll die without question.  You have the power to stop this by throwing a level that will force the cart onto another track.  That track loops around and will also eventually send them off a cliff, so you need some way to stop them.  Fortunately, resting unaware on the track is a very fat man whose body mass is enough to stop the car, though the impact will kill him.

Studies have shown that most people feel it would be immoral to pull the lever and kill the fat man, despite saving 5 people by doing so.  However, when the example is slightly tweaked to have a large boulder in the track with a man standing in front of it, people generally feel it would be moral to throw the switch even knowing that the man will be crushed between the car and boulder.  The reasoning here seems to be that it is immoral to use the fat man as a tool to achieve an end, even a noble end, whereas the man in front of the boulder's death is accidental or, maybe more specifically, incidental.  He's not being used, he's an unfortunate victim of circumstance- but the lives of the 5 people outweigh his.

I'm not entirely certain I can agree with the principle in every circumstance, and while I don't think it says anything necessarily about the morality of casual sex, it does allow us to illustrate what value we attribute to sex.  In my case, I view casual sex as using a person as a means to an end- the end being one's own orgasm.  That mutual and consensual use, while not being immoral, does, to me, devalue the act itself and even seems to bring into question the sincerity of all physical affection.

Essentially, when I'm with someone I love, I do things I do because I want to make her feel good.  If I was having casual sex, it would be lip service.  False affection.  Their pleasure is incidental, whether they receive it or not, and secondary to my own.  It's not immoral, and I don't condemn anyone for doing it, but I personally find it somewhat distasteful and choose not to participate.

Or maybe I'm just insecure.   

[Nerf]

Studies have shown that most people feel it would be immoral to pull the lever and kill the fat man, despite saving 5 people by doing so. 

I have to call bullshit, unless the question is "would you feel bad as you pulled the lever and plowed into fat dude?"  Because we know everyone is going to throw that fucking lever.

I'd throw it in a fucking heartbeat.

Then again, we all know fat people aren't really people.

[stray]

Your ex-girlfriend is a terrible example. There's probably enough baggage there that I can understand why you'd think it'd be a shallow experiment. Whatever feelings you had for her are probably exhausted at this point. You might even have better chances sharing something with a complete stranger.

Anyhow, people can and do have "casual sex" without being completely selfish about it. It is possible to still have the will to umm... give, and not just take, and even have feelings for the person. Heck, even Casanova stated that he was madly in love with every woman he knew...He claimed that he couldn't have even done what he did if that were not the case (and just generally speaking, that guy's entire life was about as complex as it gets. He was far from being self-serving or shallow).

[Llava]

Your ex-girlfriend is a terrible example. There's probably enough baggage there that I can understand why you'd think it'd be a shallow experiment.

Well, no actually.  It was a mutual breakup as we both came to a realization that our personalities clashed too much to pursue any sort of serious relationship.  We stayed friendly, though we did lose touch for a while.  That dinner was a sort of catch-up.

And that's fair enough regarding the unselfish casual sex.  I don't think I'm capable of it, but if other people are then more power to them.

[Paelos]

This thread took a turn somewhere. This isn't about morals, this is about pissing away large sums of cash!

Dammit, people get on track!

[Llava]

Studies have shown that most people feel it would be immoral to pull the lever and kill the fat man, despite saving 5 people by doing so.

I have to call bullshit, unless the question is "would you feel bad as you pulled the lever and plowed into fat dude?"  Because we know everyone is going to throw that fucking lever.

I'd throw it in a fucking heartbeat.

Then again, we all know fat people aren't really people.

Research agrees with me. I didn't say "studies have shown" to sound credible, the author of this book conducted studies and his results are as I detailed.

[stray]

Your ex-girlfriend is a terrible example. There's probably enough baggage there that I can understand why you'd think it'd be a shallow experiment.

Well, no actually.  It was a mutual breakup as we both came to a realization that our personalities clashed too much to pursue any sort of serious relationship.  We stayed friendly, though we did lose touch for a while.  That dinner was a sort of catch-up.

I didn't mean to say or presume it was a bad breakup. I'm just saying that yeah, it's over with. Not that you can't be friends or anything.

This thread took a turn somewhere. This isn't about morals, this is about pissing away large sums of cash!

Dammit, people get on track!

OK.

I have one other thing to say. While I do have to somewhat admire the comments in this thread about "donating it to charity" or something, I can't shake off the suspicion that these people are incredibly naive. Like one of those beauty pageant winners: "My ultimate wish is for world peace!"

I mean, just how exactly do you "unfuck" the world with money? It just sounds like you're trying to one-up people by saying that. How about being a little more specific.. Like, you'd pay for the hospital bills of poor kids with cancer. Something like that.

Anyways..

[Paelos]

The answer is you don't. Given unlimited wealth more than 90% of the populace would collapse under the weight of the responsibility. The fact remains that most people will hypothetically lie to themselves until the gun is in their hands or pointed at their heads.

[MrHat]

  If I was having casual sex, it would be lip service. 

 

[WayAbvPar]

I don't do casual sex.

Are you sure you are doing it right?

[LK]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029107/

I guess we know what kind of statement this makes about them.

[WayAbvPar]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029107/

I guess we know what kind of statement this makes about them.

Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, possibly as much as $100 billion in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone.

Wasn't part of the sales pitch on the war that Iraqi oil money would be used to fund reconstruction and security?

[Llava]

Oh, regarding what I WOULD do with the money, I'm honestly not sure.  Most likely I'd continue to live modestly (though buying a lot more of the things I want- those tend to run not much more than $1k though) and just support myself with that money the rest of my life, then probably give it away to a nephew or niece in my will.

[Roac]

I have one other thing to say. While I do have to somewhat admire the comments in this thread about "donating it to charity" or something, I can't shake off the suspicion that these people are incredibly naive. Like one of those beauty pageant winners: "My ultimate wish is for world peace!"

I mean, just how exactly do you "unfuck" the world with money? It just sounds like you're trying to one-up people by saying that. How about being a little more specific.. Like, you'd pay for the hospital bills of poor kids with cancer. Something like that.

In my case, I didn't say I would "donate it to charity".  I said I'd like to help friends/family and charity with it.  I'd love to walk into work one day with a stack of $10k checks and pass them out to people I know.  Closer friends would get more.  Family still more.  My thought is that I'd keep most of it as an investment.  I'd draw a salary out of that, and the rest would be for charity, with perhaps some extra thrown in to seed it with.  Maybe I'd support an existing one, maybe one I set up - with crazy money and someone looking to invest, there would be no shortage of people looking to give advise on how to run an org.  I've no idea what the charity would be for, or the form it would take.  Given I don't have $100m to mess with, I haven't put a lot of thought into it.  Probably something directly dealing with people, as opposed to something indirect like reseach, but I can't even swear to that.  I am attracted to an idea like Goodwill, where the organization is itself a community support vehicle, and the organization a secondary support mechanism.  

I have no pretense that anything like that would "unfuck" the world.  Considering that I have already surrendered a fair amount of money to do what I consider to be a community support mission in my current job, I do think I have good grounds to argue my intentions are sound if I had more money to play with.  

[stray]

Oh, I wasn't really singling out you or anything. Hell, I'd probably do the same too (for friends, I mean). I'd buy everyone an endless vacation. And I'd still have money for a cool car. 


Hmm... Goodwill. I used to work for them. While they do a lot of good in helping people get work, they still pay their employees shit (not saying this for my own sake either, I had a fairly cushy job). Not only that, but most of that work is contract based, and there aren't enough contracts. Lots of layoffs. If they need help with anything, it's that. They're not hurting in donations, I'll say that much.

[Lantyssa]

Essentially, when I'm with someone I love, I do things I do because I want to make her feel good.  If I was having casual sex, it would be lip service.  False affection.  Their pleasure is incidental, whether they receive it or not, and secondary to my own.  It's not immoral, and I don't condemn anyone for doing it, but I personally find it somewhat distasteful and choose not to participate.

This is kind of how I approach it.  There needs to be an emotional investment in someone for it to work for me.

[Roac]

Oh, I wasn't really singling out you or anything. Hell, I'd probably do the same too (for friends, I mean). I'd buy everyone an endless vacation. And I'd still have money for a cool car. 

Hmm... Goodwill. I used to work for them. While they do a lot of good in helping people get work, they still pay their employees shit (not saying this for my own sake either, I had a fairly cushy job). Not only that, but most of that work is contract based, and there aren't enough contracts. Lots of layoffs. If they need help with anything, it's that. They're not hurting in donations, I'll say that much.

I didn't take it that way - just an opportunity to elaborate.

On Goodwill, I don't mean I'd want to model after them, just that I like the idea of being able to serve a dual purpose; hire problem people to help them get on their feet, and sell to poor people to help them get on their feet.  I think it's more interesting/innovative than most charities.  The lazy charity just forwards money to a research group, or drops a few tons of airlifted grain into the middle of Africa.

Maybe those are the best groups to donate to, but hey, I went into programming because I like solving problems.  Creative solutions are more fun for me, and this is my imaginary charity, damnit 

[Calantus]

Studies have shown that most people feel it would be immoral to pull the lever and kill the fat man, despite saving 5 people by doing so.

I have to call bullshit, unless the question is "would you feel bad as you pulled the lever and plowed into fat dude?"  Because we know everyone is going to throw that fucking lever.

I'd throw it in a fucking heartbeat.

Then again, we all know fat people aren't really people.

All you'd have to tell them is they'll have let the terrorists won if they don't pull the lever and they'd do it without question I'm sure.

I'm also with Roac, I personally never give to charity and probably never will, but I'd use my money for "good" if I was more than covered. Mostly because solving the things I see as problems would be interesting and it would mean I get angry at the TV less often.