Delicious Cake Paradox

Some weeks ago I was engaged in a debate over world peace with another man, although I find the idea of world peace impossible due to the intrinsic technicalities of human nature, my opponent argued that world peace will be found by the true anti-aging movement; in other words the denial of death will lead us to peace. Questions were immediately raised along with critiques; how can perversion from nature ever bring us closer to true peace, which is an inherently natural process (examples of pacifism can be found in animals, natural beings)? My opponent disregarded these statements, but my finally retort was the following question:

"Let us say there is the most delicious cake in the world in front of you, your baker friend has given you this cake with no evidence as to what it tastes like and what is inside it, only that the cake is delicious. This is where it gets tricky:
Will you either chance to eat the cake, and may find that it is horribly unsatisfying because it made out of Liqourice, or anything you don't like, or the cake is the most delicious in the world? We all know what happens with the former.
But what of the latter? Surely if it is the most delicious cake in the world then you will not have the power to stop yourself, a life-time or more of discipline will fail with just a single bite.

Now tell me sir, do we chance the cake or no?"
(This is the original quotation in unedited form so please disregard the spelling errors and/or gramatial errors)

The cake represents unnatural long-life that my agressor argued we should strive toward, which leads us to probablistic problems, the whole thing is a good ethical question which shows whether we are altruists, egoists, or whatever. But the point is that discipline fails, which is very true, if a cake is delicious enough your discipline will fail quite assuredly. So, do we go for Hedonistic pleasures or continue to discipline ourselves?