Pleasure, in and of itself, isn’t bad (excluding those cases where it is, i.e. has adverse health effects or would be damaging to society if indulged in on a large scale). Pleasure not regulated by the structures in power, that everybody can freely avail themselves of, that’s bad, at least for the structures in power; hence, such structures tend to evolve a means of controlling such pleasures, otherwise, they would not stay in power for long. Pleasure, along with punishment, is one of the main means to exert control over subordinates – do what I want you to do, and I’ll make you feel good; don’t do what I want you to do, and I’ll make you feel bad. Loose this, and your grasp on power becomes much harder to maintain.
Is that REALLY necessary? Do we need to trot out all the examples found in Islam, Catholicism, the War on Drugs etc.?
How about if I rephrase on behalf of the OP-
Why are activities which may lead to pleasure frowned upon in many cultures and religions?
Yes, you do. Because while I haven’t read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church, I’ve studied enough Church teachings to get a pretty good handle on Church teachings, and I’ve never encountered anything which in any way suggests that the Catholic Church teaches that pleasure is bad.
They don’t, as far as I know. The only religions I know of who would match such a description would be the Manichees and their offshoots such as the Albigsenians. They believe that the cosmos was strictly divided into realms of matter and spirit, with matter being entirely evil and spirit being entirely good. Hence they desired to separate themselves from the world of matter, which meant completing abandoning all physical pleasures, hence they did believe that it was wrong to have sex, wrong to eat any tasty food (and they ate only the bare minimum of food possible for survival), etc… But one doesn’t see many Manichees on the street these days.
I’d think an ancient culture that taught its youths spartan discipline and self denial would crush a culture that sat around smoking pot and getting laid.
Yes, it is.
With all due respect, yes, you do. That and more.
Why? Because it’s not enough to cite a few examples of pleasures that are considered sinful. Rather, to establish the claim made in the OP, one must demonstrate that these religions teach that any kind of pleasure is inherently sinful. So far, nobody has done that.
The war on drugs is not a religion, BTW. Not even close.
But not necessarily one that told you to guzzle the “Spartans’” looted wine and rape their women by the light of their burning city. Just because a culture has no problem with pleasure doesn’t mean that it is less savage.
Same in Hinduism. Hell, one of the reasons the bride wears a RED wedding dress is because red is one of the colors of desire.
So, how 'bout masturbation? Pretty much as harmless fun as such is possible, but frowned upon by many churches.
“Wasting seed.” Not creating more people for the religion/church.
This is an interesting topic but the conversation is all over the place. I don’t think there are many cultures that ban or control certain behaviors because they believe pleasure is sinful. For example, those in the temperance movement in the United States honestly believed that drinking led to poverty, domestic abuse, crime, moral degradation, and all manner of vice. I have never run across a primary source document from temperance folks indicating that their problem with alcohol was that it could be used as a source of pleasure.
An even more common proposition, not just religious but also philosophical, is in the sense that the pleasure *pursued as an end for its own sake *is morally inferior to the pleasure derived as a reward from doing something good. The idea is that pursuit of pleasure for its own sake distracts from doing other beneficial things. Problems arise when those in the social or religious power structure try to define and enforce on everyone what ARE the beneficial activities. Similarly, one does not necessarily have to believe pleasure to be bad in order to believe that self-denial is good; the problem arises when people begin thinking that IS the case.
Yeah, I have to get on board with those who question the premise. I’m pretty well versed in the Christian doctrine, theology and history and by no means has pleasure been thought of as bad, except possibly by some fringe kooks (and I can’t even think of any off the top of my head… desert monastics, maybe). Christian theology teaches that pleasure is good, it is a gift from God.
Certain behaviors that people might find pleasurable (non-marital sex, recreational drugs, gluttony, etc) are sins for various reasons, but not because they are pleasurable.
Christianity is perhaps the only religion which seperated things quite so strongly and explicitly. There are good and bad pleasures to be sure. Schadenfreude is NOT a good thing. Resentment, or for that matter ressentiment, is also a very bad thing. But generally, pleasures of the flesh are wholly good but may be pursued in the wrong way. And there are many people who deny themselves pelasures, or who must not pursue some pleasures, because either they cannot handle them or because they are trying to find something better.
Really, the only religion I can think of which didn’t like pleasure was Theravada Buddhism, where earthly pelasures were primarily a distraction from more important wisdom. And even that was a pretty weak denial.
Really what the OP is asking is why certain pleasures are considered a “vice”. Typically these have historically included drugs, alchohol, prostitution, gambling and overly permiscuous sexual behavior.
Basically there are many reasons:
-Some of these behaviors are very addictive
-They can decrease performance…pretty much everywhere
-Often attract an “unsavory element”
-Have associated health issues
-Disruptive to the social order
Clearly the OP wants to start another “oppressiveness of organized religeon” thread. Keep in mind that to the illiterate, uneducated, uninformed, unwashed masses of centuries ago religeon provided a moral framework for how they were supposed to act. You would not have a modern society without organized religeon.
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino! -Hilare Belloc
Saint Augustine had a problem with sexual pleasure…for some reason, he got the idea that seual pleasure was only licit when making babies. To thwart conception (through condoms) was thought to be getting the pleasure without the duty 9to raise a child).
I wonder why this view became so popular? Of course, it came at a time when populations were small, and death rates were high.
Today, we have a problem with overpopulation, but conservative theologians still cling to Augustine’s views-why?
I’d have to see the Augustine quote. I suspect what he had a problem with was not the pleasure involved in non-procreative sex, but the attempt to thwart God’s will by preventing the possibility of conception. In other words, procreation was seen as the primary purpose of sex. It doesn’t mean that the pleasure derived from sex was bad; but preventing the possibility of conception was the bad part.
They do? Surely nobody’s going to try reviving the urban legend that the Catholic Church is opposed to all sex except that which is intended to produce children.
Quoth Der Trihs:
Are you referring to the Shakers? So far as I know, they were the most recent group to have decided that any indulgence in sex was sinful. The reason you probably haven’t heard of the Shakers is that, like every group that held that view, they died out after a single generation.
Actually I was pretty wasted when I posted the OP so I’m not really sure what I wanted, but I doubt it was something like that. I’m not going to try and convince people that my original question is valid. I think I agree with myself, but I can’t really recall my thought process at the time. And if you disagree with the religion bit, just take that out, it says culture as well. I don’t mind. Hell, feel free to change the question into something smarter.