The Dark Road to Personal Pleasure

Hedonism, an ethical theory that suggests pleasure; as in the satisfaction of our desires, is the highest good, and the proper aim of all human life. Today we see this pursuit of pleasure over responsibility in many forms. It might be a pleasure that overrides the responsibility of building financial security, personal gratification over commitment to family, or social insurrection at the expense of others. The greater moral good has been replaced by short-term personal gratification. This is accompanied by a dangerous preoccupation with blaming others for anything that offends a victim's view of reality. It's as if the accident of living gives us an intrinsic right to anything we deem pleasurable, at the expense of others. Many don't seem to realize they've succumbed to a distorted view of reality, a view that will ultimately lead to self-destructive, and sadly not produce the pleasure that might be imagined in the long term. Loneliness might be an unexpected outcome.

The current social upheaval might be difficult for the hedonistic types, in so much as those who embrace a self-centred view of life, are often those enamoured with a socialist narrative, where the ultimate goal is the control of freedoms, along with any choice about pleasures. Here you might take into consideration that hedonism is idolatry, and self-gratification includes, but isn't limited to physical pleasure. One might read the history of Rome to see how this unfolds. Yet, this mix of hedonism and socialism is the mindset of an overwhelming number of people today, especially 15-45-year-olds. Many in this bracket have little understanding of history, and for all their social intelligence, have learned little from past efforts to engineer equal outcomes. The activist end of the liberal types are so consumed by their ideological rights, pleasures, and social importance, that they cannot see that narcissism only leads to dark places.

One of the difficulties with the hedonist argument arises from the words used to identify the theory. Why is the pursuit of pleasure viewed as the highest good, and why is it, a good? By what standard is pleasure defined as a good ethic? To state, that something is good, is surely a moral claim, so on what authority is pleasure defined as such? Why is personal gratification viewed as the highest good, thus implying that nothing else in life reaches the same level of importance or preoccupation? This appears absurd, not least because our conscience might suggest otherwise. Virtues such as love, responsibility, and sacrifice might come to mind. Of interest is that the conscience is somewhat separate from the brain in so much as it functions in isolation, as an adjudicator if you like, offering moral decisions about right from wrong. But this is not to say that we act upon it, our mind makes that decision. However, I can see how proponents might argue that these more traditional goods are indeed still good, but they come as a consequence of pursuing pleasure, having satisfied the higher good, to begin with. However, even this argument invariably collapses into itself, because hedonistic pleasure as the highest ethic to strive for in life, might survive in isolation, but cannot survive in a community, or long-term under the demands of a relationship with those closest to us. Survival in life and relationships requires higher virtues of love and respect, both of which hang on to the virtue of submission. Just ask your partner or your Children. Hedonist risks descending into the worst forms of narcissism.

Sadly, in many ways, the Church has bought into the current emotionally charged narrative, which has been engineered by post-Christian ideologues. We find Christians using the same words and language, which in many ways makes the Church complicit and unhelpful in confronting the current attitude of discontent. Culturally loaded terms like "caring for the most vulnerable" might be a popular example. The nature of caring is a biblical imperative so it's hard to avoid the discussion, but the problem for the Church lies in the politics. The current liberal ethos has misrepresented the moral foundations of caring, by shifting the emphasis away from personal choice and limited responsibility for any civilized society, to one of unfettered blame and recrimination. Responsibility for failure and general inequality have become systemic consequences of colonial patriarchy, racism, and discrimination. The narrative has been weaponized by creating tropes of national and cultural victimhood, with villains that become scapegoats for victims to blame. The Church has been blindsided in a crossfire of social upheaval. This is partly the result of the pandemic, but mostly because conversations that should have occurred years ago have not been had. This situation has been evolving since the 1960s, and somewhat charged over the last 6 years. What has been exposed is that by and large, the Church has become a sub-culture instead of a counter-culture. How can you say this? Well, when was the last time, you as a Church, were persecuted for standing against the moral climate of a post-Christian generation? The Church has nothing to say because fear has exposed the impotent compliance of its leaders. On one level we have the biblical approach to caring, and on the other a socialist narrative that talks about caring but covets power and control, and we have nothing to say?

We see communities separated into tribal groups that identify their social worth and value. This tribal group further determines the degree of victimhood suffered by the group. Those who define this narrative claim to represent a fairer, more liberal, and equitable approach to rights, freedoms and caring. In reality, the underwriters are using the ignorance of short-sighted hedonism to destroy the foundations on which an objective view of life is built. Why, because the social ethic that pervades our post-Christian discourse is consumed with satisfying personal rights and grievances, and pleasure is regarded as the highest ethic that humanity might strive for, and we have nothing to say?