Let us suppose the existence of a group of people, in which the exclusive desire of each member is to satisfy the needs of the other members of the group. For the sake of simplicity we can skip the team potential and assume that this "team" consists of two members. Therefore the desire of one is the satisfaction of the other and vice versa. Therefore each will be able to feel satisfaction if he believes that the other, to some extent in the past, present or future will be satisfied. We outline a problem or rather a paradox.
Which arises because of the object of our desire rather – that is, pleasure – than because we desire this object for ourselves alone. The paradox arises because pleasure is inherently parasitic. As a kind of parasite it requires the existence of a host. If all of us desire pleasure – regardless of whether those desires are selfish – we will have no way to enjoy it. This is the interpersonal counterpart of the pleasure paradox. According to this, we will never conquer pleasure if pleasure is our goal. We need to look elsewhere.
Certainly to say aphoristically that morality is "bad" is too much. No one would want the desires of a murderous sociopath or a pedophile rapist liberated to be seen as an example of mental health or a field of claims against social conformity. The finding that morality can make us "bad" is probably wrong, without the necessary conditions and a better understanding of it. Morality, however, is a cause of pathology and aggression towards others as well as towards ourselves. Admittedly, morality has a dark side, especially since it is often a matter of prohibition – of what not to do. Prohibitions are what empower culture. The prohibition of incest, for example, is the very condition of the possibility of civilization, according to him Freud. Great admirer of culture, despite the irritations it produces.
In this sense, ethics does not fit into a good life, a "good" life. It is probably a cause of psychopathology, perhaps even unhealthy. The more "moral" we are, the more critical we become of ourselves. Our moral standards give rise to guilt, usually unconscious, combined with unconscious desires for punishment. And they usually manifest with mental symptoms and our inability to let go of them. It resembles his allegory Plato, in which he invites us to recognize the shadows of the cave for what they are. Aiming for a kind of enlightenment, the loss of illusions, the collapse of ideals and a certain collapse of morality.
Our social nature is inherent in social positions or even social "roles" that do not represent us. We understand – returning to the group potential – that we did not choose them and had not the slightest participation in this strange "distribution" of these roles. Many times we just "play" the roles as pretenders and not as actors. So as members of a social condition, sometimes we coordinate with our social determinants and sometimes we don't.
Acknowledging only one aspect of ourselves, either how we are objectified by others under certain identities or group affiliations, or alternatively how we as subjects can transcend any such objectification, can often be leveraged as a strategy bad faith and denial of responsibility. A stable social life is one where we implicitly accept both of these aspects, negotiating how we specifically inhabit our practical identities and what they commit us to through our choices and actions.
Perhaps "indulging" in life is far from the Aristotelian "Providence". It marks a life path that is far from the middle path. It includes exposures to unforeseen changes. It allows for the contradictions of feelings, desires and values. The world of feelings and desires is not subject to choice. It happens, we can't pre-decide it. "Give in" and "let go" means daring, choosing and accepting creativity, within the realm of emotions. This is a "therapeutic" benefit.
Rather, it is an expected "side effect" of the constant effort of self-awareness one acquires by trying to "hear" oneself, to connect it with others, to become aware of one's ongoing associations, to make sense of the imaginary connections between thoughts, feelings, desires or memories that spring up in the mind or even the physical reactions that come into his perceptual sphere. Imaginary self-awareness as a life goal leads to pleasure, without even seeking it. It leads to parasitic pleasure through its host. If I just want pleasure I will probably never find it. If I long for the relationship - the Other - I will find much more and probably that's where the pleasure will be, without its paradox.
*Frontpage picture: A.Volkov – The dance (1924)