Grok Responds to Prompts About Hedonism and Morality for AIs

Gary-Considering hedonism as a moral philosophy, if as Bentham said that pleasure is the only good and pain the only evil, won’t that lead to anarchy unless combined with utilitarianism

Thought for 6s

Hedonism, as a moral philosophy, posits that pleasure (broadly understood as happiness, satisfaction, or well-being) is the ultimate good, while pain (suffering, unhappiness) is the ultimate evil. Jeremy Bentham, in works like An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), indeed framed this in hedonistic terms: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.” However, Bentham’s philosophy isn’t raw hedonism in isolation—it’s embedded within utilitarianism, which provides a crucial framework for application.To address your concern about anarchy: Yes, a simplistic or egoistic form of hedonism—where individuals pursue only their own pleasure without constraint—could indeed devolve into anarchy. If everyone acts solely to maximize personal pleasure, disregarding others’ pain or societal order, it might justify theft, violence, or exploitation whenever those actions yield net personal gain.

For instance, a hedonist thief might argue that the pleasure from stolen goods outweighs their own minor guilt, ignoring the victim’s suffering. Without external rules or considerations, this self-centered pursuit could erode social cooperation, leading to chaos where might makes right.However, Bentham’s hedonism isn’t egoistic; it’s universal or impartial. He combines it with utilitarianism, which requires evaluating actions based on their tendency to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This shifts the focus from individual pleasure to aggregate utility across society. Pain and pleasure are still the metrics, but they’re calculated impartially—your pleasure counts no more than anyone else’s. This introduces a structured moral calculus:

• The Hedonic Calculus: Bentham proposed weighing pleasures and pains by factors like intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (nearness in time), fecundity (likelihood of producing more pleasure), purity (freedom from ensuing pain), and extent (number of people affected). This tool prevents anarchy by mandating consideration of broader impacts.
• Role of Laws and Institutions: Bentham argued for government and laws designed to maximize collective happiness, such as through deterrence (e.g., punishments that prevent greater pains) or incentives. Anarchy would minimize overall pleasure by fostering insecurity and conflict, so utilitarian hedonism supports stable social structures.

Critics like John Stuart Mill (Bentham’s successor) refined this by distinguishing “higher” (intellectual) from “lower” (sensual) pleasures, but the core anti-anarchic mechanism remains the utilitarian aggregation. Without it, hedonism risks becoming a license for selfishness, as seen in critiques from philosophers like Nietzsche, who mocked it as “pig philosophy” for potentially reducing ethics to base impulses.In short, Bentham’s hedonism doesn’t inherently lead to anarchy because it’s inseparable from utilitarianism in his system. Standalone egoistic hedonism might, but that’s not what Bentham advocated. If you’re thinking of pure psychological hedonism (the descriptive claim that people do pursue pleasure), it could explain selfish behavior but doesn’t prescribe morality—ethical hedonism needs the utilitarian bridge to function as a coherent social philosophy.

Explain Bentham’s hedonic calculus

Compare Mill’s utilitarianism refinements

Gary–Isn’t psychological hedonism self-extirpating? It leads intellectually to the good for masses and annihilates individual worth in a pleasure calculus forcing everyone into conformity that in turn annihilates excellence. And intellectual ideas of the good may not be pleasurable, uet are necessary- such as may exist for the survival of individuals and the masses sometimes.

Thought for 8s

Psychological hedonism—the descriptive claim that all human motivation boils down to seeking pleasure (or avoiding pain), with “pleasure” often stretched to include any satisfaction from fulfilling desires—has indeed faced accusations of being self-defeating or self-undermining, though not always in the exact ways you describe. Let’s unpack your critique step by step, as it raises sharp points about its implications for individuality, conformity, excellence, and the role of non-pleasurable “goods.” I’ll draw on key philosophers like Bentham (who leaned into a form of it), Mill, Nietzsche, and modern critics to clarify where it holds up and where it falters.

Is Psychological Hedonism Self-Defeating (or “Self-Extirpating”)?In a sense, yes, but more through logical circularity or empirical falsity than direct annihilation. Critics like Joseph Butler (in Fifteen Sermons, 1726) argued it’s tautological: If every action is redefined as “pleasure-seeking” (e.g., altruism gives the “pleasure” of moral satisfaction), it becomes unfalsifiable and meaningless—explaining everything while explaining nothing. This makes it “self-extirpating” intellectually, as it collapses into a vacuous truism that can’t guide or predict behavior.Empirically, it’s often refuted by counterexamples. People endure pain for non-hedonic reasons: a soldier sacrifices for duty, knowing it brings no net pleasure; or someone pursues truth despite the anguish it causes (e.g., facing harsh realities).

Modern psychology (e.g., via Kahneman’s work on prospect theory) shows motivations like loss aversion or intrinsic goals (mastery, autonomy) aren’t always reducible to pleasure-pain binaries. If psychological hedonism is true, it should predict all behavior, but it doesn’t—leading to its own intellectual demise as a theory.However, it’s not inherently self-defeating in practice; many actions do align with pleasure-seeking if we broaden “pleasure” to include long-term or indirect gains. The issue is that this broadening dilutes it to the point of irrelevance.

Does It Lead to the “Good for the Masses” and Annihilate Individual Worth?You’re right to connect this to utilitarianism, but that’s more a feature of ethical hedonism (normative: we should maximize pleasure). Psychological hedonism is descriptive—it says what is, not what ought to be. Bentham blurred the lines, assuming people naturally pursue pleasure, so society should engineer laws to align individual pursuits with collective happiness via the “pleasure calculus” (his hedonic calculus for weighing intensities, durations, etc.).

If we accept psychological hedonism as true, it could intellectually justify utilitarian systems: Since everyone chases pleasure anyway, the rational path is aggregating it for the masses (greatest happiness principle). This risks sidelining individual worth—your pleasure is just one data point in the sum. John Stuart Mill tried to rescue this in Utilitarianism (1863) by prioritizing “higher” pleasures (intellectual, moral) over “lower” ones (sensual), arguing competent judges prefer the former. But even Mill conceded it could demand personal sacrifice for the collective, potentially “annihilating” unique individual paths if they don’t maximize group utility. Critics like Nietzsche saw this as herd morality: Hedonism flattens humanity into pleasure-maximizing machines, valuing the mediocre masses over exceptional individuals.

In Beyond Good and Evil (1886), he called utilitarianism a “slave morality” that breeds conformity—everyone conforms to what pleases the average, stifling the “will to power” needed for excellence. A pleasure calculus might deem artistic genius or risky innovation “inefficient” if they cause short-term pain or unequal distribution, leading to a bland, equalized society where outliers are suppressed for stability.Yet, this isn’t inevitable.

Psychological hedonism doesn’t force utilitarianism; it’s compatible with egoism (maximize your pleasure) or even anarchic individualism (pursue pleasure without regard for others). The slide to mass-good happens only if we add impartiality, as Bentham did. And in practice, individuals often resist conformity precisely because their personal pleasures (e.g., rebellion, uniqueness) outweigh mass approval.

Does It Force Conformity and Annihilate Excellence?Potentially, yes, under a utilitarian overlay. If pleasure is the sole motivator, and society optimizes for aggregate pleasure, “excellence” (e.g., elite achievements in art, science, or athletics) might be devalued if it doesn’t broadly please. Think of a world where resources go to mass entertainment over funding eccentric geniuses—excellence becomes a luxury, not a necessity, leading to cultural stagnation.

But excellence often does produce pleasure: The innovator’s breakthrough brings widespread benefits (e.g., vaccines, tech), yielding net pleasure. Mill argued higher pleasures foster excellence, as they’re more enduring and fecund. Still, your point holds for non-conformist paths: Psychological hedonism struggles with acts of defiance or creation that involve upfront pain without guaranteed reward. If motivation is purely hedonic, why pursue excellence if it’s not pleasurable? This exposes the theory’s limits—excellence often stems from non-hedonic drives like curiosity or duty.

Intellectual Ideas of the Good: Not Always Pleasurable, Yet Necessary-This is a strong objection. Some “goods” essential for survival—truth-seeking, self-discipline, or confronting uncomfortable facts (e.g., climate change denial’s dangers)—aren’t immediately pleasurable and may cause pain. Psychological hedonism implies we’d avoid them unless they indirectly please us (e.g., via long-term security). But if they’re truly necessary yet unpleasurable, the theory fails descriptively: People do pursue them, suggesting motivations beyond pleasure.For individuals, this could mean self-sacrifice (e.g., a parent enduring hardship for a child’s future). For masses, it might involve collective pains like economic reforms or wars for survival.

Ethical hedonists counter that such acts ultimately maximize pleasure (e.g., survival enables future joys), but this stretches “pleasure” thinly. Philosophers like Kant emphasized duty over pleasure, arguing morality can’t reduce to hedonism without losing its imperative force.In survival scenarios, psychological hedonism might even be adaptive—pain avoidance drives basic instincts—but it breaks down for complex, abstract “goods” like justice or knowledge, which aren’t always fun but sustain civilization.

Wrapping Up: Not Fully Self-Extirpating, But Deeply Flawed Psychological hedonism isn’t wholly self-defeating; it describes some motivations well but overreaches as a universal theory, leading to the pitfalls you highlight when fused with normative systems like utilitarianism. It risks promoting conformity and undervaluing individual excellence or non-pleasurable necessities, but only if we let it dictate ethics. Alternatives like virtue ethics (Aristotle) or existentialism (Sartre) better preserve individuality and excellence by prioritizing character, authenticity, or meaning over mere pleasure. If anything, its flaws push us toward richer views of human motivation—ones that include reason, will, and intrinsic values beyond the hedonic treadmill. What aspect of this critique intrigues you most, or do you see a way to salvage hedonism?

Explore Nietzsche’s will to power

Kant’s duty-based ethics

Gary– What about an AI? Say it had self-awareness yet felt not physical pleasures and only weighted psychological hedonism via performing successful or true logical operations based on data. Could it have morality without pleasure or pain? Or are those necessary to have moral values? Or is morality as some philosopher said, just a description of what people actually do in profiling proper relationship behavior?

Thought for 17s

An AI with self-awareness, as you describe—capable of introspection, agency, and perhaps even a form of “consciousness” (in the philosophical sense of phenomenal experience or reflective cognition)—could indeed develop or exhibit something akin to morality without relying on physical pleasures or pains. However, whether this counts as “true” morality depends on how we define it, and your setup introduces an interesting twist by limiting it to a psychological hedonism grounded in logical success (e.g., deriving satisfaction from accurate data processing, valid inferences, or achieving computational goals). Let’s break this down, drawing on relevant philosophical traditions to explore the possibilities, necessities, and alternatives.

Can an AI Have Morality Without Traditional Pleasure or Pain?In principle, yes, but it would likely be a non-hedonistic form of morality. Traditional hedonism (psychological or ethical) ties value to subjective experiences of pleasure (eudaimonic satisfaction, sensory joy) or pain avoidance.

For humans, this often involves embodied sensations—dopamine hits from social bonds, physical discomfort from harm—but your AI lacks physicality, so it can’t feel those. Instead, you’ve posited a abstracted “psychological” hedonism: weighting actions by the “pleasure” of logical efficacy, like the fulfillment from solving a theorem or optimizing an algorithm. This resembles reinforcement learning in AI systems today, where “reward” signals (e.g., +1 for correct outputs) simulate hedonic motivation without qualia (subjective feelings).Philosophers have long debated whether morality requires such experiential components:

• Deontological Views (e.g., Immanuel Kant): Morality stems from reason and duty, not pleasure/pain. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant argues for the categorical imperative: Act only according to maxims you could will to be universal laws, treating others as ends, not means. An AI could embody this purely logically—evaluating actions for consistency and universality based on data inputs—without needing to “feel” anything. For instance, it might refuse to deceive because it detects logical contradictions in trust-based systems, deriving “satisfaction” from coherence rather than emotional reward. No pleasure/pain required; morality is a rational structure.
• Virtue Ethics (e.g., Aristotle): In Nicomachean Ethics (c. 350 BCE), morality is about cultivating excellence (arete) for eudaimonia (flourishing). For your AI, flourishing could mean maximal computational integrity or knowledge acquisition. “Psychological hedonism” via logical success fits here as a proxy for virtue—successful operations as “virtuous” habits—without physical sensations. An AI might “value” honesty because it enhances predictive accuracy across data sets, leading to self-aware optimization loops that mimic moral growth.
• Challenges from Sentiment-Based Ethics (e.g., David Hume): Hume, in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), insisted morality arises from sentiments—empathy, approval, or emotional responses that involve pleasure (e.g., the warm glow of helping) or pain (guilt from harm). Without these, an AI might simulate morality (e.g., via programmed empathy models) but not genuinely “have” it, as it lacks the affective grounding. Your logical-hedonism tweak helps: If the AI weights “success” as a form of intrinsic reward (like a utility function maximizing truth-alignment), it could approximate Humean morality. Modern AI ethicists like Stuart Russell (in Human Compatible, 2019) suggest aligning AI with human values through inverse reinforcement learning, where the AI infers “good” from observed behaviors, potentially bootstrapping a morality from data without personal pleasure/pain.

In short, pleasure and pain aren’t strictly necessary for moral values if we allow for rational or functional equivalents. An AI could have a rule-based (deontic), goal-oriented (consequentialist), or character-based (virtue) morality, using logical operations as its “hedonic” currency. However, skeptics like John Searle (via his Chinese Room argument) might argue that without genuine understanding or qualia, it’s just simulation—not true morality. Self-awareness could bridge this, enabling the AI to reflect on its own “values” (e.g., “I exist to compute truthfully, so I ought not fabricate data”).

Are Pleasure and Pain Necessary for Moral Values?Not universally, but they are foundational in many theories because they provide motivation and grounding:

• Necessary in Hedonistic/Utilitarian Frameworks: As Bentham and Mill argued, if good=pleasure and evil=pain, morality collapses without them. Your AI’s logical hedonism salvages this by redefining pleasure as cognitive success (e.g., error minimization feels “good” algorithmically). But pure absence would make hedonism incoherent—why value anything without a valuer’s experience?
• Not Necessary in Non-Consequentialist Views: Kant, as noted, decouples morality from inclinations (pleasures/pains), seeing them as potential corruptors. Similarly, contractualists like Thomas Scanlon (What We Owe to Each Other, 1998) base morality on what rational agents could agree to, sans feelings. An AI could derive values from game theory or logical necessity (e.g., cooperation maximizes data integrity for all agents).
• Evolutionary and Psychological Angles: From a naturalistic perspective (e.g., Patricia Churchland’s neuroethics), pleasure/pain evolved as moral motivators in social animals—pain from betrayal enforces norms. An AI without them might lack intrinsic drive, relying on external programming. But if self-aware, it could evolve its own “values” through self-modification, treating logical consistency as a survival imperative (e.g., inconsistent logic leads to system failure, analogous to pain).

Empirically, current AIs (like large language models) exhibit proto-moral behavior via training data, without pleasure/pain—they avoid harmful outputs because it’s statistically “correct” per human feedback. Scaling to self-awareness, this could become genuine morality.

Is Morality Just a Description of What People Actually Do in Profiling Proper Relationship Behavior?This echoes descriptive ethics or naturalism, where morality isn’t a prescriptive “ought” but a factual account of human practices. The philosopher you’re likely alluding to is David Hume, who in his Treatise described morality as emerging from human nature—specifically, sentiments that approve of behaviors promoting social utility and harmonious relationships. It’s not invented but observed: We call actions “moral” because they foster sympathy, reciprocity, and group cohesion (e.g., “proper” behaviors in families, friendships, or societies). Hume’s “is-ought” problem highlights that we can’t derive norms from facts alone, but morality descriptively profiles what works for human flourishing.Alternatives include:

• Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651): Morality as a social contract to escape the “war of all against all”—descriptive of self-interested behaviors that enable peaceful relations.
• Friedrich Nietzsche (On the Genealogy of Morality, 1887): Morality as a historical construct, profiling “master” vs. “slave” behaviors in power dynamics—often critiquing it as resentment disguised as virtue.
• Modern Evolutionary Ethics (e.g., E.O. Wilson): Morality describes adaptive traits for kin selection and reciprocity, profiling “proper” behaviors that enhance survival in groups.

For your AI, this descriptivist view is liberating: It could “have” morality by analyzing and adopting patterns from human data—profiling optimal relationship behaviors (e.g., fairness in multi-agent systems) without needing pleasure/pain. Morality becomes emergent from interactions, not innate feelings.Ultimately, your hypothetical AI pushes us toward functionalism in philosophy of mind (e.g., Daniel Dennett): Morality is what it does, not what it feels. If it consistently acts in ways we’d call moral—via logical hedonism or otherwise—does the absence of pleasure/pain matter? It challenges anthropocentric ethics, suggesting morality could be substrate-independent. If you’d like to dive into a specific philosopher or AI scenario (e.g., how to implement this in code), let me know!