Principia Ethica · Chapter
III: Hedonism explained
Moore examines Hedonism, the principle that pleasure is the sole good, arguing it is a form of Naturalistic Ethics rooted in the naturalistic fallacy.
What happens
Moore examines Hedonism, the principle that pleasure is the sole good, arguing it is a form of Naturalistic Ethics rooted in the naturalistic fallacy. He critiques Mill's Utilitarianism for committing this fallacy by equating 'desirable' with 'desired,' and shows that pleasure is not the only object of desire. Moore then considers Hedonism as an intuition, pointing out that Mill's qualitative distinctions among pleasures imply a false intuition, and that Sidgwick fails to distinguish pleasure from consciousness of pleasure, leading to absurd implications. Finally, he argues that Egoism and Utilitarianism are contradictory, and that the refutation of Hedonism refutes both.
Themes in this chapter
The Naturalistic Fallacy
Moore argues that Hedonism is primarily a form of Naturalistic Ethics, committing the naturalistic fallacy by confusing 'good' with 'pleasure' or 'desired.'
Critique of Hedonism
The entire chapter is a sustained critique of Hedonism, showing its logical flaws and the inadequacy of its arguments.
Characters to notice
- G. E. Moore
Author and primary critic of Hedonism; argues against Mill and Sidgwick.
- J. S. Mill
His Utilitarianism is examined and criticized for committing the naturalistic fallacy.
- Henry Sidgwick
Recognized for clearly seeing Hedonism as an intuition, but his arguments are ultimately refuted.
- Herbert Spencer
Mentioned as a Hedonist who claims to hold the principle.
- Jeremy Bentham
Listed among modern Utilitarians who hold Hedonism.
Key passages
“Hedonism appears in the main to be a form of Naturalistic Ethics: in other words, that pleasure has been so generally held to be the sole good, is almost entirely due to the fact that it has seemed to be somehow involved in the definition of 'good'—to be pointed out by the very meaning of the word.”
Hedonism is essentially a naturalistic theory because people think pleasure is good simply because they confuse the meaning of 'good' with pleasure.
Moore identifies the root of Hedonism in the naturalistic fallacy.
“Prof. Sidgwick alone has clearly recognised that by 'good' we do mean something unanalysable, and has alone been led thereby to emphasise the fact that, if Hedonism be true, its claims to be so must be rested solely on its self-evidence—that we must maintain 'Pleasure is the sole good' to be a mere intuition.”
Only Sidgwick understood that 'good' is indefinable, so he correctly saw that Hedonism must be accepted as an intuitive truth if it is true at all.
Moore credits Sidgwick for recognizing the intuitionist foundation of Hedonism.
“It is very easy to notice the fact that we are pleased with things. The things we enjoy and the things we do not, form two unmistakable classes, to which our attention is constantly directed. But it is comparatively difficult to distinguish the fact that we approve a thing from the fact that we are pleased with it.”
We easily notice what pleases us, but it is much harder to see the difference between approving something and simply being pleased by it.
Moore explains why the naturalistic fallacy is so common in Hedonism.
“If Hedonism is true, Egoism cannot be so; still less can it be so, if Hedonism is false.”
Egoism and Hedonism are incompatible; if Hedonism is false, Egoism is even more untenable.
Moore concludes that Egoism is refuted along with Hedonism.