Hedonistic vs. Pluralistic Consequentialism

Hedonists count both pleasures and pains, where their ethical theory is that where satisfaction of desire is the highest good and proper aim of human life. A notable philosopher who espoused hedonistic notions on that which is right and wrong, was Epicurus, such that Epicurus' ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism. It is important we note, that pleasure is not the absence of pain because there are times when people experience neither pleasure nor pain and times when we feel both.

We can read opposing view points of hedonism in classic utilitarianism from contemporaries such as Bentham and Mill. They argued that hedonism lowers the value of human life to the level of animals. Bentham stated that a simple game such as push-pin is renderd as equally valuable as something highly intellectual, such as poetry, if it produces an equal amount of pleasure. Quantitative hedonists assert that poetry produced with significance can generate more pleasure than "trivial" games. This is due impart to the fact that the pleasures derived from poetry are certain (or probable), durable (or lasting), fecund (likely to lead to other pleasures), pure (unlikely to lead to pains), and so on.

Mill employed a different approach in order to avoid equating push-pin with poetry. Where he made a distinction between higher and lower qualities of pleasures based on the preferences of individuals who have encountered both types. This hedonistic notion is defined as qualitative hedonism and has also been a subject of much critism; as with any philsophy worth debating.

Eudaimonist Virtue Ethics

Eudaimonist Virtue Ethics, or eudaemonism, defines virtues respective to eudaimonia. Where Eudaemonists claim we should develop virtues that contribute to or are a constituent of eudaimonia, a term in Ancient Greek philosophy. Its standard translation is "happiness" or "flourishing" and sometimes translated as "well-being." Let's consider the disadvantages of each translation.

To continue.