I admit to being amazed and bemused by how many naturalists (or defenders of naturalists) have once again missed the point (of my immediately preceding posts). To them I say: You are missing the point which is logic. There is no logical reason that can be given, on naturalistic beliefs alone, why a person who enjoys being a hedonist should not be so long as his hedonism does not interfere with survival, reproduction, and happiness. And since happiness is subjective, whatever he calls happiness must be. Of course you can disagree with his lifestyle, preach to him, warn him, call him names, etc. But you can’t give a logical reason why he should live otherwise–on purely naturalistic grounds.
I have not said naturalists live like that. Most do not. But that’s not the point. In my opinion, insofar as naturalism prevails as the common worldview, hedonism will follow–eventually. Because no logical reason can be given against it to someone who chooses to live by the only values nature alone can produce: survival, reproduction and happiness. Even those values are only instincts, not real moral values.
So far ALL attempts to argue against the young naturalist-nihilist-hedonist’s chosen lifestyle have fallen short of the challenge–to give him a REASON (not sermon, testimony, warning about the future) WHY he should not live that way based on belief that nature is all that is real and that he and others are ONLY highly evolved animals with no transcendentally assigned purpose.