Sidgwick's hedonism is the ethical hedonism that defines pleasure as the only ultimate good. According to Sidgwick, pleasure is a feeling that a sentient being apprehends as desirable at the time of feeling it, and the ultimate good is that which is ultimately desirable. Among Moore's criticisms of Sidgwick's hedonism, the only appropriate one is that since Sidgwick's argument has only proved that objective relation (when distinguished from pleasures) is not included as a part of ultimate good, he has not shown that Mill's hedonism (extended hedonism)--objective relation associated with pleasure as a part of ultimate good--does not hold.Which is more appropriate--Sidgwick's hedonism or Mill's? In Sidgwick's hedonism, virtue is only a means to happiness (pleasure). Therefore, his view does not adequately represent the importance of virtue. On the other hand, in Mill's hedonism, virtue is apart of hap-piness and thus should be pursued for itself. As such, Mill's view adequately represents the importance of virtue. Given the above, Mill's hedonism is more appropriate than that of Sidgwick.

投稿論文