In order for someone's existence to be acceptable, they should provide value? Monetary value? Or does human life intrinsically have value, making this a tautology...?

I really wonder what this means in terms of how the homeless or the elderly are treated.

What a strange inversion of reasoning. *

Hedonism is an example of society being so capable of providing that it has largess. Any society without hedonists would be cautionary. Hedonists test the limits of what society has achieved on behalf of the individual and is in my belief the entire point of society.

Society should elevate the individual be it hedonism or otherwise.

* this is a quote and I am being a bit facetious here, I agree with other commenters that it’s impossible to draw a line on this balance

You could make the exact same argument about people with clinical psychopathy, and it would be just as valid.

Well said, yes it’s very much relative to other humans around.

That largess is very much not equally distributed.

"is not providing value to society" ... are we talking only the core values today of profit and growth?

It's like pornography... you can't properly set boundaries on what defines it, but "you know it when you see it"

Nothing about gp’s comment is particularly capitalist. It actually reminded me of The old communist slogan: “He who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat”.

> The old communist slogan

Lenin have repeated that after Paul... and John Smith

2 Thessalonians 3:10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_...

The other communist slogan is “He who does work, probably doesn’t eat too”.

What about unique patterns of wealth redistribution across the economies they participate in? Surely this is a value to society.

Indulgence doesn’t necessarily have to mean abuse.

That could only be true if each of our desires made true were not of value to society. And I think its obvious lots of people derive pleasure in things that create value, from helping others to producing nice thing to throwing a great party.

Hell even the stereotypical hedonistic lifestyle provides value. From that friend who gets you out of the house to do something, the life and soul of the party who makes everyones night brighter, your friend the uber-optimist who encourages you when your down.

A life of hedonism is unlikely to provide maximum value to society but it could be net positive.

Someone aiming for maximum pleasure and minimum risk could spend much of their time as yet another cog in capitalistic society, but an ambitious hedonist is likely to aim for more. Someone like Hew Hefner might seem like a poor role model, but he did make something millions of people wanted while living a life of extreme excess. Given different talents that could be anything from becoming a rock star to curing cancer.

Why does the definition of a “life well lived” have to include value to society?

Where does "providing value to society" come into it? Why?