Hedonism: Key Points

Hedonism: pleasure is the only non-instrumentally good thing; pain is the only non-instrumentally bad thing.
Non-instrumental vs instrumental: other goods (money, friendship, etc.) may be valuable as means to pleasure, not in themselves.
Why it appeals: high-well-being lives typically feature substantial pleasure and little pain; pleasure often cited as evidence of what is good for us.
Formal formulation (basic):
$ext{Hedonism: All and only pleasure is (non-instrumentally) good for us.}$
$ext{All and only pain is (non-instrumentally) bad for us.}$
$W ext{ (well-being) is determined solely by the balance of pleasure and pain experienced.}$
Note: for readability, terms like
(\text{non-instrumentally}) are often omitted in ordinary discussions.

Hedonism, concise: All and only pleasure is (non-instrumentally) good for us; All and only pain is (non-instrumentally) bad for us; A person\'s overall well-being depends solely on the balance of pleasure and pain they experience.
Implication: well-being is tied to the hedonic balance (pleasure minus pain).

Evidence: welfare subjects (e.g., gorillas, dolphins, dogs) plausibly have levels of well-being and can experience pleasure/pain; pencils/lampshades cannot.
Non-hedonist reply: other features (desire, friendship, knowledge, achievement) help explain why some beings have well-being.
Hedonist reply: the correlation between welfare status and the capacity to feel pleasure/pain supports hedonomics, though not decisively.

Proposed premises: egin{aligned}
1. &\quad \text{All human action aims to maximize well-being.} \
2. &\quad \text{The agent\'s pleasure and pain are the only things capable of motivating them.}
  \end{aligned}
Therefore: $\text{Hedonism is true.}$
Criticisms:
- Premise (1) (always maximizing self-interest) is questionable; people act against self-interest at times.
- Premise (2) (only pleasure/pain motivate) is controversial; other factors can motivate action.
- Even if the argument is valid, the premises may be false or incomplete.

Correlation idea: if hedonic level aligns with well-being in many cases (e.g., Raj on the Rollercoaster), then the best explanation may be that well-being is determined by hedonic level.
Limitations:
- Correlation does not imply that hedonic level exclusively determines well-being; other factors could contribute.
- It could be a third variable (e.g., friendship, achievement) driving well-being alongside hedonic level.
Illustration: a variation of Raj\'s case could keep hedonic level fixed but add other positive factors, increasing well-being without changing hedonic balance.
Paradigm-case argument is similarly vulnerable: high-well-being cases may be explained by non-hedonic features, not solely by pleasure/pain balance.

What exactly are pleasure and pain?
How should intensity and duration of pleasures/pains be integrated into value (the prudential value of experiences)?
How should different desirable features interact (e.g., duration vs. intensity)?
Is there a unique correct function from hedonic input to overall well-being, or are there multiple plausible theories?

Hedonic level: the overall balance of pleasure and pain a person experiences at a time.
If hedonism is true, hedonic level should perfectly track well-being:
egin{aligned}
H \uparrow &\Rightarrow W \uparrow, \
H \downarrow &\Rightarrow W \downarrow, \
W \uparrow &\Rightarrow H \uparrow, \
W \downarrow &\Rightarrow H \downarrow.
\end{aligned}
This is called the Perfect Hedonic Correlation thesis.
Note: the claim rests on the assumption that only hedonic factors affect well-being, and that there is a precise mapping from hedonic level to well-being. These assumptions are exactly what the debates challenge.