You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

Hedonistic Imperative

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki

The Hedonistic Imperative (1995) is an online self-published manifesto by David Pearce that advocates for the end of suffering through advanced medicinal science and genetic engineering. Pearce expresses throughout the book a moral obligation to implement advanced bio-technologies that will propel humanity into a post-pain, post-evolution stage (post-human). The Hedonistic Imperative describes what Pearce calls the abolitionist project, the active working of individuals and the transhumanism community towards the post-human state. This is driven from a morality rooted in psychological hedonism.

David Pearce’s arguments within The Hedonistic Imperative are built on a set of important beliefs. Foremost is that his view’s are secular and rationalist; arguably they are also atheist and materialist. The world in which Pearce argues for the need of the abolitionist project is cruel, however he never faults God, rather the painful process of Darwinian evolution. From these beliefs it must be understood the view of happiness in The Hedonistic Imperative is intimately linked to what Pearce views as the “neurobiological foundations of all emotional life,” i.e. that emotions are the product of our bodies and brains. For David Pearce, “An earthly paradise can be achieved only by the profane application of science.” With these foundational believes Pearce argument for psychological hedonism can be rationalised and a moral imperative to create heaven-on-earth validly argued.

Introduction[edit]

David Pearce, author of The Hedonistic Imperative

David Pearce introduces first the conclusion of abolitionist project, namely that the world will become a place where everyone shares absolute well-being devoid of pain. This future will unfold as the technologies that make them possible advance and as people actively seek to create it. In effect humanity could take control away from Darwinian evolution, which Pearce sees as perpetuating and even encouraging forms of suffering, becoming masters of our own genome. Once humanity has attained this level, what Pearce describes as “post-human”, suffering should only be possible if chosen. It is his belief that humanity should choose not to suffer.

Pearce describes how in modern times the mood-influencing drugs we possess are employed as dampeners for bipolar disorder and depression in attempts to normalise emotional states allowing individuals to function within society. He also references Michael Eysenk’s hedonic trendmill theory, which explains the tendency within humans to revert to a previous state of average well-being after intense experiences of joy or sadness, which prevents our ability to experience long-lasting happiness. Pearce concludes in contrast to the euphoric highs people are capable of achieving that “it is the rest of us who are chronically unwell…contemporary standards of mental health are just pathologically low.” However Pearce recognises the issue with constant bliss, referring to Olds & Milner’s euphoric level-pushing rats. However, this model mischaracterises the abolitionist project as seeking total euphoria, whereas it seeks the abolition of pain. Additionally he explores how dopamine-driven ecstasy can empower motivation and push individuals to achieve, directly opposed to blissed-out uselessness. 

From this Pearce introduces the structure of his argument and his book;

“I shall first schematically set out how a naturalistic, secular paradise of effectively everlasting happiness is bio-technically feasible. Second, I will argue why its realisation is instrumentally rational and ethically mandatory. Third, I will offer a sketch of when and why such a scenario is likely to come to pass in some guise or other. And, finally, I shall try to anticipate some of the most common if not always cogent objections that the prospect of psychochemical nirvana is likely to arouse, and attempt to defuse them.”

How?[edit]

o  1.0

Within this section Pearce seeks to establish the scientific validity of abolishing pain. The first step for Pearce is to escape the hedonic treadmill, potentially achievable with the use of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MOA). Used today as antidepressants, such drugs “are in general unrewarding to people who aren’t rated clinically depressed,” since their design is sedative for the purposes of allowing those with clinical mental illnesses to function within society. Their use as mood boosters have intentionally been avoided by the medial industry due to “abuse-potential”. However Pearce is confident in the development of a “life-enriching stop gap” drug that will overlay humanity until such time as gene-therapy becomes practical and wide spread, at which point “psychoactive drugs may become redundant.” This road is long and difficult to foresee, as “we just don’t – and can’t – conceptualise the full extent of how unwell we are,” but the possibility of an “intellectually discerning bliss” is possible. Pearce is introducing the idea that the current human psychological state is one of sickness, which is ignored due to stigma and a denial.

o  1.1

Pearce first establishes that there are many ways for the abolitionist project to be complete, and that his and other post-humanists initial plans should not prevent the exploration of all viable ways of its achievement. Pearce is self-aware that The Hedonistic Imperative glosses over deep and complex cross-disciplinary issues that he cannot foresee or even at this point understand. However, the abolitionist project is driven by what Pearce views as a moral imperative (view Chapter 2), encouraged by empathy for those currently suffering, to see the importance of desiring and striving to abolish pain, the starting place if his post-human vision is to ensue. For it by human intelligence and scientific development that a heaven-on-earth can be created.

o  1.2

A crucial component of starting the project is changing the bodies’ mesolimbic dopamine system. In taking control of these “pleasure pathways” (though this is crude terminology) Pearce suggest we could separate ourselves from the misconception that “we are happy or sad ‘about’ things.” He points out the failure of our natural systems to maximise happiness; as “dopaminergic neurons die off at a rate of over 10% per decade,” worsening out experiences of pleasures as time progresses. Pearce’s suggestion is investigate 1) increasing the number of dopaminergic neurons within the brain’s pleasure center and 2) reduce inhibiting feedback (a.k.a pain) to said neurons. Importantly stimulation of the brain in this way is dangerous; it is implicated in crack addict and schizophrenia. As such it cannot be the sole component within the abolitionist project.

o  1.3

Another monoamine neurotransmitter is consider by Pearce, serotonin. Though typically related to anger, outbursts and violence, serotonin is key to the MDMA (or ecstasy) response. In combination with a controlled release of dopamine, Pearce suggest a “delayed-action, non-neurotoxic drug or cocktail-mix of sustainable mood-brighteners” which would be common and extremely helpful in created his “drug-assisted Eden.”

Why?[edit]

o  2.0

Why should we edit the human genome to abolish suffering? Pearce defends the morality of his proposal with a means-ends analysis based in psychological hedonism. Psychological hedonism can be summarised as the view that it is pleasure and pain exclusively that motivates individuals e.g. I work not for delight in money but for the pleasure that money gives me access to. If this is true, then for Pearce it follows we ought to deconstruct the hedonic treadmill in order that we avoid falling back down from a higher state of pleasure and enjoy what we have always been ultimately seeking.

o  2.1

Introspection is applicable in the ‘third-person’ where you can see and test evidences, but when considering the happiness of subjects it becomes an introspective measurement which is far harder to quantify. Pearce is aware of the degraded position introspection has within the sciences, as well the additional issue of individuals not being consciously aware of the process their brain is undergoing at any given point. This creates the question for Pearce of “how can we be said to be "really" seeking happiness?”

o  2.2

In arguing for psychological hedonism, Pearce … Happiness is only perceivable and testable within testimony from the introspection of subjects.

o  2.3

Pearce gives two arguments for the validity of psychological hedonism. 1) Psychological hedonism is sufficient for endless pleasure the brain is capable of feeling; if it is are base drive to seek pleasure it makes sense for that pleasure to be endless. In the same strand of thought, drugs that cause ecstatic pleasure wear away at the morality of the user, demonstrating the drive for pleasure as greater than moral conduct. Here Pearce claims that “we are all dependent on opioids to feel physically and emotionally well” enforcing the materialist view of emotional well-being being primarily chemical. 2) Pearce argues it is not possible for us to perform actions we see as less pleasurable. He presents a thought-experiment of the world progressing normally, but our actions are simply the progression of moments and movements without our will causing said actions. We would exist as passengers within our bodies, rather than actors. In this scenario, you might see your body do things you, detached from the action, would see as a poor choice considering the consequences. However this is not possible for us. Because we as humans are in control of our actions, it does not make sense that when presented with a choice we would choose pain over pleasure. We may be deceived or short-sighted, but within that decision we will make the choice we perceive will have a desirable outcome for us. Consider whether it is possible for an individual to willing make a choice with the intention of achieving an outcome they don’t desire. Pearce is in turn claiming psychological hedonism is already interconnected with our understanding of how we act.

When?[edit]

Objections?[edit]

Conclusion[edit]

o  5.0

In concluded Pearce recognises that the reader of The Hedonistic Imperative will possess their own intuitions about its subject matter and how the response will be influenced by their mood. If the reader is “euthymic” or in a normal state of mind, Pearce infers they will likely be sceptical and dismiss the abolitionist project as the wild hopes of those deeply depressed. Pearce is recognising that people cannot completely detach themselves in order to be completely convinced by the logical-appraisal of his proposition. He is conscious that “mood and meaning interpenetrate,” and true neutrality is non-existent. Additionally what is viewed as good mental health is contingent upon social norms. So Pearce asks what should be the response of the person of sound mind who “finds oneself viscerally hostile to the idea of universal happiness.” Potentially, Pearce considers, it is due to natural selection, in which any movement towards permanent happiness would lead to extinction. However the reader who finds themselves asking this question should keep in mind our “damaged and disfigured minds may have limited self-insight,” which would be overcome in the post-human era.

o  5.01

Much of the minutia of the abolitionist project has been ignored throughout the Hedonistic Imperative, mainly due to the technical knowledge that Pearce does not possess and a lack of research in line with the project. However as proved in Chapter 1, the project is feasible, and as such Pearce wishes for support from some “single major government, charitable foundation or segment of the global power elite,” in kick starting the work. However there is a perceived danger in seeking such support; that post-humanity would become the state of a select first-world elite at the expense of continued (or even intensified) pain for the third-world. Pearce would then see international co-operation on the abolitionist project.

Pearce concludes with a criticism of social stigma that would see people dismiss the Hedonistic Imperative as prudish and call for the reader to celebrate a world in which pain is abolished and all people can live euphoric lives.

References[edit]

This book was self published in an online manifesto, available at David Pearce's website and the links below.

The Hedonistic Imperative at hedweb.com

The Hedonistic Imperative at Google Books

The Hedonistic Imperative



This article "Hedonistic Imperative" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Hedonistic Imperative. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.