WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE PURSUIT OF PLEASURE?
Bill Becker
The Declaration of Independence states in part: “We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
(“Declaration of Independence” The Encyclopedia Americana, New York, 1949).
Seemingly, today’s generations are often more inclined to view the “pursuit of pleasure”
as a matter of moral rationality on par with those “unalienable rights” expressed by
Thomas Jefferson. Why?
A Philosophical Pursuit
In the Foreword to William S. Banowsky’s book, It’s A Playboy World, D. Elton
Trueblood identifies hedonism as “the philosophy which holds that the pursuit of pleasure
is life’s highest purpose” (Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1969, p.
9). J. C. B. Gosling affirms, in Pleasure and Desire: The Case for Hedonism Revised,
the status accorded hedonism at that time: “Pursuit of pleasure is now not simply to be
advocated but exhibited as a hall-mark of rationality, so that to divorce morality from it is
to condemn morality as irrational” (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969; p. 22). The operative
word is “pursuit.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary gives “an endeavor to
attain to, gain, or achieve” as its third definition of this term (“Pursuit,” G & C Merriam
Co., Springfield, 1966). Trueblood’s comment defines hedonism, Gosling’s reveals the
desire to see it legitimized as an ethical system for conduct. What effect would this have?
A Pervasive Pursuit
Banowsky illustrates that Epicureanism and Utilitarianism differ from Hedonism
because they attempt to “moderate pleasure-seeking with a qualitative differentiation”
which “leads inescapably to the admission of some standard other than pleasure itself” (It’s
A Playboy World, p. 48). The issue at question is that of standards.
Pure hedonists see the acquisition of pleasure and avoidance of pain as a moral
standard. Epicureanism and Utilitarianism advocate a modification of this, hence allow for
some standard other than pleasure. But therein is the crux of the matter. Their search for
a standard that will yet allow the pursuit of pleasure, particularly in the area of human
sexuality, finds its realization in the Humanism of our present time. The Humanist
Manifesto II affirms that “moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics
is [sic] autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction”
(Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1973, p. 17). Certainly autonomous (self-ruled) and
situational (changeable) promote wide latitude as regards what is ethical? How wide?
Fifteen years after publication of the Humanist Manifesto II, its editor, Paul Kurtz, shares
his view of what ought to be in his book, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism when
he says that “Privacy rights apply to various forms of sexual expression, including
masturbation, adultery, and homosexuality. The state should not prohibit sodomy,
prostitution, or pornography”(Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1988, p. 188). Abortion,
infanticide, and euthanasia are all admitted by Kurtz as in need of some regulation, but
these--in principle--should be allowed. The regulation he gives for infanticide, for instance,
would not allow it on the grounds of retardation, but would on the grounds of an infant
born with a debilitating disease which surgery or treatment cannot keep from an early
death. As Kurtz puts it: “It is only when an infant is grossly malformed and unable to
function without machinery and would die extremely young anyway that we might permit
it to die as quickly as possible. The proper course is the withholding of treatment, allowing
nature to take its course” (Forbidden Fruit, pp. 227-228).
In 1985 Edd Doerr wrote an article in The Humanist which had the film “The Silent
Scream” as its subject in the Church and State column. This film was a sonogram image of
an abortion involving a twelve-week-old fetus. Doerr says: “Nathanson tries to sell
viewers on the idea that twelve-week-old fetuses are persons who feel pain.” He then cites
literature from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that “know of no
legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain
early in pregnancy” (July-August, 1985, p. 41). The emphasis seems to be on proving that
twelve-week-old fetuses cannot feel pain. But abortion advocates today have pushed the
gamut of options to include partial-birth abortions. These are births in which a full term
infant--even partially born--may be “aborted” by inserting a sharp instrument at the base of
the skull and using suction to remove the infant’s brain. The same authorities that weighed
in Doerr’s favor in 1985 inveigh against him in 1996. Here is a case of one human (mother)
causing another (infant) pain. But where are the humanists? Where is their cry of outrage?
Perhaps the desensitizing effect of such thinking is illustrated by author and columnist
Barbara Ehrenreich who, in The Worst Years of Our Lives, had this to say about abortion:
“The one regret I have about my own abortions is that they cost money that might
otherwise have been spent on something more pleasurable, like taking the kids to movies
and theme parks” ( “Their Dilemma and Mine,”1991; first published 1989. The Columbia
Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1993 by
Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. Caedmon recordings reproduced by
arrangement with Harper Collins Publishers).
A Subtle Pursuit
Readers of these pages do not, in all probability, endorse the pursuit of pleasure as a
means by which to live. Neither are they caught up in the grosser elements of this
philosophy as outlined above. But can we deny that churches have been influenced by the
pursuit of pleasure? When individuals within the church succumb to the almost
imperceptible hedonistic influences in society, it does not take long for them to appear in
the church. Consider how pursuing pleasure impacts churches in the following ways:
Commitment. Christianity is at loggerheads with hedonism/humanism in principle.
Jesus said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness: and all these
things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33 KJV). The principle in Christianity is to put
God first. The principle in hedonism/humanism has been from the beginning, as Martin,
Clarke, Clarke, and Ruddick show in A History of Philosophy, that statement attributed to
Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things, of the existence of the things that are and the
non existence of the things that are not” (Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York, 1941,
p. 90). If God is not put first in our lives, then surely we are living to please ourselves.
Time. Elders can do months of preparation for determining specific needs within a
congregation, making arrangements for special speakers to address these, promoting the
event within the congregation, and advertising it to the public. But sometimes the
attendance at these is anemic and or downright discouraging. One of the major difficulties
in scheduling what should be opportunities for spiritual feasting for churches is conflict
with other events. If we avoid Monday through Thursday so as not to conflict with work
schedules, then we are into Friday night sports. Does this mean attendance at your child’s
sporting event is sinful.? No, but how often does your church schedule special speakers,
seminars, or events? Certainly not every weekend.
Money. We all need it. We all must work, pay bills, and provide for our families. But
the simple fact is that this is an area where the Lord should come first also. What do
children learn from us if we spend a hundred-dollars taking the family on a weekend outing
and put five dollars in the plate on Sunday morning? The apostle Paul says, “Upon the
first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him,
that there be no gatherings when I come” (I Corinthians 16:2). Invite children into the
discussions of your family about how much God has “prospered” you and let them help
put it in the plate.
Family life. This is not an indictment against parents who must both work to provide a
living in today’s world. But there are times when we must seriously consider what it is we
are working to get? This is simply a plea that parents exercise care and planning in their
schedules so that things like home bible studies, prayer time together, wholesome
recreation time together, family interaction, and role modeling can take place. We do have
a responsibility to “. . . train up a child in the way he should go. . .” (Proverbs 22:6).
Morality. The evening news is full of accounts of those who lie to gain an advantage,
cheat on their spouse, drive while intoxicated, murder, rape, or rob. How can churches
promote morality when school systems are passing out condoms? Get your young people
together. Promote the values of chastity, honesty, reliability, and influence. Many teens
voluntarily sign pact-agreements to exhibit Christian morality. We must always remember
that we are called to a higher purpose than the world: “For ye see your calling, brethren,
how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called”
(I Corinthians 1:26).
