Ahedonism: (without, or absence of, pleasure or joy) the denial that pleasure has a place in life.

The failure to comprehend what ethical hedonism is all about leads to ahedonism and loss of valid, health-promoting freedoms. To indoctrinate children with this unnatural world-view induces off-putting strictures that cause a lifetime of harm. A proper understanding of hedonism would require each generation to pass to the next a complete regimen involving the high importance of personal responsibility, self-control, empathy, balanced healthy living, action and consequence, and social responsibility. That does not sound like the pleasure-seeking that ahedonists make of it, does it? Yet, for or against it, nature has made hedonists of us all.

Those important lessons can hardly be taught by a society whose members have, at most, only a vague awareness about them that has been subverted with poisoned misinformation. The technology that has developed from applications of modern science would alert us that any self-regulated device not provided with a means to stabilize its activities to within a preset range will eventually destroy itself. Overload protections are generally provided to forestall the inevitable. The factory settings are generally most recommended.

For humans, homeostasis regulates most systems, and nature has provided, through evolution, a brain capable to learn when we should shut ourselves down. We must be taught how to live, whether through experience or training. Pain and pleasure work as a team to accomplish that, unless we are taught to misunderstand their signals. Ahedonistic interference in legal systems around the world has removed many freedoms that are necessary for a successful return to ethical hedonism. Most of that was done over time with no scientific testing, in response to ahedonistic pressure, [1] justice be damned.

Justice: We all have to understand that there are three sides to every freedom, every issue of rights, which must get equal consideration before any action can be justified. What is just equates with what is moral. Three questions must be answered in their proper equivalent form:

  • Who will this affect? If asserting a right will infringe on another’s equally valid right, this may best become a matter for the courts. In America, our Constitution defines justice as found in hedonism and natural law systems that preceded America’s founding. A system of justice will be modeled upon fairness, compassion and empathy.
  • Who enjoys the reward? Perpetrators of destructive acts not part of a remodeling or upgrading project, acts against innocent parties who are unlikely to benefit. Terrorism, scamming, thievery, murder, and similar other acts, must be prevented from gain and treated as criminal.
  • Who will bear the costs, now or in the future? Other than for taxes by a government entity, from which all are expected to benefit, only those expecting to gain from an action will normally be those who will make the effort and assume the risks.

Other considerations:
Are you sure you’re not seeking to exercise a restricted right? Religious artifacts are fine almost anywhere except on public property. Prayer is a religious rite, not free speech, and must not be performed anywhere it could get construed as government sponsorship of a religion. [2] Prayer led by an authority figure, or their representative, on public property or at events sponsored by governmentally funded institutions violate the law. A quiet private prayer offered up in a manner that does not affect others, if it doesn’t look like showboating, should cause no trouble, but ask to be certain as the rules seem to be often misunderstood. Spitting on sidewalks is outlawed in many cities, as is public urination, defecation, masturbation, and coitus.




[1] “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” — Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82–

[2]  “… the NEA is not opposed to individual prayer in school. What we oppose is group-led prayer in the school, which is un-Constitutional.” (Mary Futrell, President of the National Education Association, interview, Christianity Today, March 15, 1978, p. 32, according to Alan F. Pater and Jason R. Pater, compilers and editors, What They Said in 1985: The Yearbook of Spoken Opinion, Beverly Hills, CA: Monitor Book Co., 1986, p. 472.)



Please leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s