Is praxeology grounded on psychological hedonism/eudaemonism?
I’ve been reading for some hours trying to solve this doubt, but I found some (probable) contradictions between some Austrian economists on this issue; namely, Henry Hazlitt and David Gordon - they are the ones, I found, that write more explicitly about psychological hedonism/eudaemonism.
In “The Foundations of Morality”, Hazlitt defends psychological eudaemonism. “I shall argue in this chapter, therefore, in defense of at least one form of the doctrine of ‘psychological eudaemonism’.” (page 37 of the pdf archive).
In “A Introduction to Economic Reasoning”, David Gordon says: “When we say in economics that an actor thinks that obtaining his goal will increase his utility, we are not—repeat not—committing ourselves to psychological hedonism”. (page 46 of the pdf archive)
I know that that quote from Hazlitt doesn’t mean that he says that praxeology is grounded on psychological eudaemonism. I also know that hedonism is different from eudaemonism, but I believe that they are talking about (more or less) the same thing.
At long last, my question is: is praxeology grounded on psychological hedonism/eudaemonism or not? Was Mises a psychological hedonist/eudaemonist? Or, when he says that “every conscious action is intended to improve a person’s satisfaction”, he is not, in some way, grounded in psychological hedonism/eudaemonism?
I would argue that psychological hedonism or eudaimonism suggests pleasure or happiness for its own sake. Praxeology just asserts psychological egoism, which states merely that individuals act toward their own desires. Individuals can act toward something like spiritual enlightenment, which, while possibly pleasurable or happiness-inducing, is an end distinct from the aforementioned.
Eudaemonism isn’t necessarily limited to sustaining human happiness in the present. It is commonly called ‘flourishing’ which means there is a period where a grand happiness is to be achieved. Like working towards becoming a respect academic scholar could be someone’s eudaemonia. What Mises would call ‘removing a felt unease’ If you are interesting in gaining a greater understanding of eudaemonia, Roderick Long has a series of lectures on the subject which are thought provoking.
Praxeology is the science of human action, it isn’t some kind of moral, ethical, or philosophical value-driven movement. Thus, no, it is not based on psychological hedonism.
Have you all take into account the difference between ethical hedonism/eudaemonism and psychological hedonism/eudaemonism?
“Philosophers commonly distinguish between psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Psychological hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness.” (http://www.utilitarianism.com/hedonism.html)
“A specific form of psychological egoism is psychological hedonism, the view that the ultimate motive for all voluntary human action is the desire to experience pleasure or to avoid pain.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism)
So, is praxeology grounded on psychological egoism (like Justin Sparh-Summers said)?
yes, but don’t get lost reading various ‘outside’ accounts of psychological egoism , you’r likely to just get lost and confused. what you quoted on psychological hedonism, is contradictory and poorly worded. not your fault, but i’m just saying it shows its tricky ground.
but anyway sticking with WIKI =>
. Many discussions of psychological egoism focus on this variety, but the two are not the same: one can hold that all actions are ultimately motivated by considerations of self-interest without thinking that all agents conceive of their self-interest in terms of feelings of pleasure and pain.[1]
Praxeology doesn’t claim that all human action is done hedonistically. Praxeology claims the following: humans act and time exists, thus, humans are limited by time, thus, humans must form value scales. What’s on those value scales is subjectively determined.
krazy kaju and nirgrahamUK, thanks for your answers, I understand what you said…
But I can’t see how Mises is not asserting some form of psychological… (something similar to) hedonism…
When I read him saying: “The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness”, or “The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man’s desire”, can’t I say that he is asserting something like a… psychological… satisfaction-hedonism… something like this? Like a form of psychological hedonism that says that all humans act to satisfy a desire.
(I am in the last semester of my undergraduate course in economics, in Brazil, and I have to write a final monograph. What do you think about writing about this subject? Something like “Praxeology and Hedonism”, where I can study various types of hedonism and correlate with praxeology.)
The praxeological concept of “acting” is different from some traditional, or commonly used, concepts of “acting”. If you look in the dictionary the concept of “act” you can find some different from the praxeological one (“anything done, being done, or to be done” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act) - in this case, you can say that a spasm is an action. But from the praxeological point of view, it is not. Am I being foolish?
" In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man’s unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological."
First thing to notice is that Mises’ is saying in effect, “I am using the word “happiness” in a very different way than it is usually used. If you ignore this, you will not understand me.”
“Happiness” is here being defined as “The positive result the actor expects of his action”. Every unique act of every individual has a different happiness label attached to it, the result he expects of the action. Of course it may have mixed results. But if he does the action, it is because of one particular result or results that he wanted to see happen. That result or results are, by definition, his “happiness”.
What are some standard “happinesses”? What are the reasons people do things? Do they "exclusively desire pleasure"? Such questions are beyond the scope of Mises*’ w*ork. He is not studying WHY people do things, but rather WHAT they do AFTER they have decided for themselves where their happiness lies.
Does he think it is right or wrong to pursue a particular “happiness”? Probably he did have views on certain “happinesses”. I assume he thought that axe murdering people for thrills is wrong. But again, he is not studying the rights and wrongs. One who studies the workings of the Mafia should reach the same conclusions of HOW they operate, regardless of ones personal opinion of them. Does a Mathematician like or dislike triangles and circles? Whatever the answer may be, you won’t see it in his work, because it is not relevant to his work. Whether the circle has 359 or 360 degrees does not depend on his personal opinion of circles.
Did Mises’ believe that "the ultimate motive for all voluntary human action is the desire to experience pleasure or to avoid pain"? Same answer as the previous q. He is not studying what the ultimate goal is or should be. He is studying what a particular person does AFTER said person has fixed in his mind what he wants of a particular situation that he is in.
Is this a good subject for a paper? If you are enthused by it, sure. If some well known idiot has misunderstood the subject, so much the better.
It is not “grounded on” hedonism or eudaemonism or any other moral doctrine. It is a study only of the connection between ends and means. It is not a study of what ends one should choose to pursue.
PSYCHOLOGICAL eudaemonism says that the ultimate goal of all action IS happiness (not SHOULD BE). It doesn’t say WHAT men SHOULD regard as happiness.
“In colloquial speech we call a man “happy” who has succeeded in attaining his ends. A more adequate description of his state would be that he is happier than he was before. There is however no valid objection to a usage that defines human action as the striving for happiness.” (Mises, HA)
"The idea that the incentive of human activity is always some uneasiness and its aim always to remove such uneasiness as far as possible, that is, to make the acting men feel happier, is the essence of the teachings of [psychological] Eudaemonism and Hedonism." (Mises, HA)
(mine [psychological])
“The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness” (Mises, HA)
Isn’t it clear? I am making some mistake?
I am not saying that he makes ethical affirmations about what people should do, nor that PSYCHOLOGICAL eudaemonism does this. But that, when he says that all human action is happiness-oriented, he is using the PSYCHOLOGICAL eudaemonist argument (which is different from the ETHICAL eudaemonist argument).
thats cool, so long as you understand he does not have a naive or narrow view of ‘happiness’ . but i’m confident you do [;)]
given that Mises and his followers are clear and unambiguous on such points, I must say I’m doubtful that there is much scope for scholarly work in that particular area. I’d be happy to be proved wrong though !
I think Mises would agree with the fact that humans are psychologically hedonistic, that is, he would agree that, ultimately, people act in ways to please themselves somehow. I do not think, however, that psychological hedonism is necessarily a part of praxeology. Praxeology is supposed to be the a priori science of human action. I don’t think there is an a priori method to prove psychological hedonism, although it certainly makes sense intuitively and I would say it passes the principle of sufficient reason test.
Well I have only heard of Aristotle’s eudaemonism and none of this ‘psychological’ eudaemonism/ethical eudaemonism. Eudaemonism concerns the ‘human flourishing’, in essence a ultimate end goal to life. Now this doesn’t involve things like eating a vanilla ice cream right now unless eating that ice cream is a constitutive means to the ultimate goal of the individual. It is the removing of felt unease in a more broader dialectical sense. Like having my life devoted to anarchist theory or getting rich or being a charitable individual.
Roderick Long Lectures
Here are Roderick Long’s lectures on the subject plus some other good ones on whether Mises was a radical and the difference between apriorism and positivism.
Haha, yes. I will try to stick to the “purely formal character of the notions pain and pleasure”, and happiness, and avoid the “material and carnal meaning”.
I think I’ll just say that (after explaining what is hedonism and its forms, praxeology, austrian school, Mises - people here don’t know very much this kind of thing) praxeology uses psychological eudaemonism in some way - in its purely formal sense. Just to classify things, and make them clearer. (And, also, because I have not too much time to deliver the paper, in order to finish my undergrad course.) What do you think about it?
But, if Mises explains that, praxeologically, all human action is happiness-oriented, isn’t it a a priori statement?
In “The Foundations of Morality”, Henry Hazlitt writes: “(…) distinction whatever between what has since come to be known as the doctrine of psychological hedonism (the doctrine that we always do take the action which we think will give us the greatest pleasure) and the doctrine that has come to be known as ethical hedonism (the doctrine that we ought to take the action which will result in the greatest pleasure or happiness).” This is a good source, right?
I will, for sure, listen to the Roderick Long lectures, but is there transcriptions for them?