To stars_sons and Old_Gobbo, re my post:
I mean that, for example, we like the fact that we’ve got a criminal justice system, and that we would dislike it if we didn’t.
I am not going to argue weather it is right or wrong.
i only say that it is inherent in life
we live for our pleasure or to avoid pain.
As I mentioned in another post,
for example: if you are doing a job (as in employment), i will do it either i like to do it for it self or for the benifits it gives OR to avoid being jobless and in debts etc
And for those who say that they do selfless acts for others without seeking pleasure,
i will say that they do the so called selfless acts, because they give them the pleasure of doing it,
and so they do it.
they get the pleasure in helping others or being (so called) selfless.
OR the pleasure of being called selfless by others.
and when hedonist is inherent part of life , then where is the question of it being right or wrong?
i consider that question as idiognostic.
Good post 
-
I cannot find the word “idiognostic” in my online dictionary. Please define.
-
Looking at pleasurable experiences another way, if I go with Aristotle’s ethics I might say that different persons have different tastes as to what is a pleasurable act. One could judge the man not only on whether he intellectually wants to, but even enjoys giving to the poor, deep down, or in doing another good or evil action.
In the words of Rumi: “Judge a moth by it’s candle.”
There is a basis for something besides being ruled by power–we just don’t use it very often.
Hmmm…“private”-“knowledge/faith”? Dependent on a personal worldview? Interesting made-up word there.
How does someone convince themself (I mean really convince themself) that it’s in line with their self-interest to get themselves killed for some ideal or a loved one? Because I can’t reasonably answer questions like that, I’m inclined to think that systems of belief don’t all simplify to hedonism.
It’s important to remember that acts of selflessness like these are often reactive, instinctive, or programmed in, so aren’t the product of decision-making processes of the sort that the hedonism argument applies to. That being said, people do do things which are bad for them after thinking about it, even when they’re fully compos mentis. I think this happens because, in their representation of the world, certain people are more valuable to them than the person dangling below them on the bottom fringe of their field of vision. Also, allowing certain things to happen could make life seemingly unbearable for them.
Thank You
…
Sorry
kind of wrong word & wrong typing
i meant to say that the question is kind of inherently meaningless (as in ignosticism)
the actual sentence should be that i consider the question equivalent to be ignostic.
but looks like the wrong word makes some sense
may be a new word is born 
I see the question to be a bit different
you are asking about self-interest and not pleasure
i see both of them as two different things.
Self-interest is where you do an act for personal interest or advantage ie., you will expect a (so called ) good outcome.
Problem is that many of us see the self interest as being live etc. but it actually depends on the persons views and that is a different argument
But if you ask about the pleasure
i say it is kind of involuntary or inherent thing
the answer is simple,
they find pleasure in doing it ie., being killed for their ideals or loved ones.
eg: take Bhagat Singh (indian freedom fighter)( for those who dont know him- google it)
He went to death row with simle because he felt pleasure in dying for the nation.
he knows that he has to die someday and he felt pleasure in dying this way than a natural unnoticed death.
In others view it may not be in his best interest or(self-interest) to die but it gave him pleasure of dying for the nation.
And also ever lasting fame in the hearts of many indians
Romeo found pleasure in dying for Juliet
Majnu found pleasure in dying for Layla & vise versa
And people who really act with pleasure wont try to convince them because it is involuntary.
people who try to convince themselves are those who are acting to avoid pain.
well avoiding pain is also part of hedonistic view.
but thats a different topic.
“Ignostic” isn’t a word either 
If you meant “agnostic,” that isn’t the same as “meaningless.”
I’m really at a loss for how dying can be pleasurable. Maybe to avoid living with moral guilt, but then, if you’re hedonist, why would it be pleasurable to believe you could be guilty of being immoral?
prefix ig-, as in ignorant, + gnostic, knowing
[edit]
Noun
ignostic, plural ignostics
- one who holds to ignosticism
- one who expresses ignorance of any knowledge of a god or gods due to finding theism incoherent
[edit]
Adjective
ignostic
- of or relating to ignostics
- of or relating to ignosticism
Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored.
The term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Ignosticism is often considered synonymous with theological noncognitivism.
Lets break the your question into individual questions.
You said “Maybe to avoid living with moral guilt”
Means - avoiding the pain of feeling the moral guilt - which I am sure is equal to
he·don·ism
Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
And for the second half
“why would it be pleasurable to believe you could be guilty of being immoral?”
I would first ask you to define what is immoral?
are you sure that what you define as immoral will be the same in every one’s view?
If you say that dying for loved ones or their ideals is immoral, i probably will not have anything further to comment
From your statement it seams to me that you are trying to ask about the suicide bombers etc.,
Do you think that the suicidal bombers see the act as immoral??
I dont think so. and may be they are true in their view.
isnt suicide bombing as equal in morality as killing many in iraq under the false pretext of nuclear bombs.
Isnt it as equal in morality than saying that only few country can have nuclear bombs and others should live on their mercy.(what guarentee will these countries have that hiroshima or nagasaki will not repeat).( well leave about that- you can see the position of iraq already).
they see it as a threat and see that fighting against it as a moral cause.
I am not trying to convince that suicide bombers are doing moral act, i am trying to make you see their version of morality.
Morality depends on the individual view, and so they might get pleasure in doing what you feel to be immoral
Ugh. Well that seems to be the same as “agnostic,” and I’ll take your word for it that it’s a word 
Edit: Found it! lol. Ok, so it’s a specific type of agnosticism; sorry to go on about that…
I know, I mentioned that as a possible explanation of how such a level of sacrifice could be classified as hedonism, then I refuted it:
I think you misunderstood, keep in mind that I was trying to say that not everyone’s philosophy is rooted in hedonism. If you’re a hedonist, why would you decide to define your sense of morality in such a way that you’d be pressured to die to uphold those morals? In other words, morality–which can determine action–can very easily not be based on hedonism. While some expressions of compassion/sacrifice can be based on hedonist perspectives, plenty of people have deeper reasons than pleasure, as evidenced by people sacrificing their lives for moral reasons.
Sorry about that
I strongly agree
I WON’T (sorry I am not Shouting, I am saying loud so that my point reaches well) (and I dont consider myself as a hedonist, even though it is what leads me in life(I already said that it is an inherent human nature))
I would not decide to define my sense of morality in such a way that I’d be pressured to die to uphold those morals.
I only define it in such a way that I would be pleasured to die to uphold them if necessary.
I consider those moral reasons as means of getting Pleasure
I see pleasure in the depths of those moral reasons.
You may disagree with me (looks like your perspective of pleasure and my perspective of pleasure are different)
I don’t understand the distinction.
Do you mean people decide their morality solely based on what is pleasing? If you do, why do you think so? It doesn’t seem to me like all moral codes are based on pleasure–is it pleasing to forbid yourself to eat pork, to fly an airplane into a building, or to forbid yourself from killing cows? Can you explain what you mean by pleasure if you think that’s the point of confusion? I’m defining it in terms of being composed of self-interest/selfish desires, which may be too narrow.
For Me Pleasure is
Want, desire, Happiness
Main Entry: pleasure
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: happiness
Synonyms: amusement, bliss, buzz, comfort, contentment, delectation, delight, diversion, ease, enjoyment, entertainment, felicity, flash, fruition, game, gladness, gluttony, gratification, gusto, hobby, honeymoon, indulgence, joy, joy ride, kick, kicks, luxury, primrose path, recreation, relish, revelry, satisfaction, seasoning, self-indulgence, solace, spice, thrill, titillation, turn-on, velvet, zest
Main Entry: pleasure
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: inclination
Synonyms: choice, command, desire, fancy, liking, mind, option, preference, purpose, velleity, want, will, wish
If you do an act, what makes u do the act?
If you buy a novel, if you see a movie, if i answer this question…
What makes us do it?
I or you do it because I or you Want to
that want is pleasure.
I believe that any one does act either because of that want to or Because he has to
has to is when you do things to avoid pain.
ie., like finishing work by deadline to avoid the negative consequences.
coming back to the statement
There is a lot of difference in my view
the first is when you are pressured to do things. ie., people will force you to do it . you may end up doing it to avoid pain.
the second (pleasured) is when you do it with full happiness.
forbid yourself to eat pork, or to forbid yourself from killing cows - I belive some do it because they find pleasure (happiness) in following their religious traditions
some do it because they want (synonym to pleasure) to attain so called moksha or Heaven or what ever it is named
some do it because they want (synonym to pleasure) to please their community or family or whoever it is by following those traditions
And the rest do it because they want to avoid the pain of being cast away by their community for doing it.
to fly an airplane into a building
they did it because they felt it pleasurable (desire) to shake the american economy.
At the end I will say that self is all that counts in everyones life
Have you ever asked yourself why you care so much for you girl friend or sister or brother or mother or father etc.,
I say the answer is simple.
If you ask me why I care so much about my girl friend or sister or brother or mother or father etc.,
Because, as you already said…
they are
MY girl friend or
MY Brother or
etc
so with out that selfishness or desire ( i already mentioned above - about how we desire or want to do acts) or avoidence of pain - i dont see how any one can live
the yogis who gave up everything???–they did it with the desire to get moksha OR
the desire to be free of everything (paradoxical - isnt it?)[/i]
To explain my objection in terms of your last example, the desire to get moksha isn’t the same as the desires that moksha involves escaping. Quite certainly, everybody decides to do things because they decide to do them, but it isn’t because they get “joy,” “comfort,” “delight,” or “amusement” from them all, which would be the connotations of the kind of want that pleasure is to me. Desires that only involve the immediate self, with no consideration beyond it, are ‘pleasure’ as I interpret it to mean for hedonism.