Assuming that personal pleasure and happiness are the only undeniably good things, does that mean that there are no objective standards of good, or are there some things which are good for all and therefore objective moral standards? The only thing I can think of that could be an objective standard is liberty (on the assumption that each person knows best how to maximise their own happiness), but then if economic and social freedom can lead to one person’s liberty taking away another’s, can even this be said to be truly good? So is hedonism compatible with objective moral standards?
I suppose you mean by “objective standard” an impersonal standard, because there is a sense in which even personal pleasure is an objective standard since I can use it to settle the question whether something is good or not. It is good if it gives me pleasure, and if not not. And pleasure can also be an impersonal objective standard. For hedonism need not be egoistic hedonism. It can be universal hedonism; the pleasure of all. So, it doesn’t follow that because pleasure is mental, and therefore subjective in that sense, that it cannot be objective as a standard for right or wrong. (You could even have altruistic hedonism whereby the moral standard is the pleasure of others) The terms “subjective” and “objective” are not the names of anything clear.
I suppose you can believe that liberty is an “objective” standard, or anything else you like. But the question is whether it is one. After all, just because you believe it is, it does not follow that it is.
No, that wouldn’t be either. (After all for your own pleasure you may wish to reject other people’s liberty to maintain your own pleasure, hence not objective).
However, if what you actually meant was, would there be a moral rule which all hedonists would come up with irrespective of of their personal wants (which is a different question), more like could we create a universal moral law within egotistical hedonism, then again it would be no, but for a different reason. I don’t think there could be one, for example we could imagine someone who wants to have his liberty taken away presicely because it gives him pleasure. Any moral rule you gave us we could just create an entity whose pleasure would be derived from exactly the opposite of that rule (even absurd ones like they wish to suffer an agonising death, we just create an imaginary entity whose only want is that). As they logical possibility of such an entity will immediatly deny the universal part of the question the answer will always be no.
One suggestion would be that they would all come up with a moral standard that would be they should do whatever gives them the most pleasure, but I think that’s a little question begging and also circular as that’s the basis for their morality and so i don’t know if you could call it a moral rule per se.
Depends what you mean by compatible. They could still be logically possible I suppose (that could be a major gaffe on my part, fingers crossed, too tired to think about it properly), but just not conceptually possible.
Why do you think that? They’re pretty clear to me. Subjective, dependant on a person’s perception of a situation. Objective, it is not. For example a room can be objectively 23 degree C, but subjectively hot or cold to a perciever. The ability to separate the two is fairly easy, if the distinction is unclear it is because we cannot fully understand what we are talking about, rather than the difference betweeen sub/obj. In a discussion about morality it may be that we cannot fully understand the concept pleasure (or know exactly what to apply it to, does an animal experience pleasure? Does a plant? An amoeba?). That’s where the confusion comes from.
Though that all depends if you’re a realist or not I suppose. Though extreme anti-realism isn’t really a viable doctorine to live your life by.
Thinking about it I may have misunderstood you Kennethamy (are you two people? 
What does that name mean?), if you were saying that the reason we can’t understand the sub/obj devide in morality is precisely for some reason like I outlined above, not that we can’t understand these concepts ever, I do apologise.
hey Grave Disorder! good question… i think the answer depends on the concept of the self or if you believe in universals. if there is a school of thought that embraces constant universals which are present in everyone (i.e. compassion, kindness, etc) then following one’s pleasure will only lead them to these constats. thus, having the prusuit of pleasure be the main goal of a society will mean that the society will reproduce these universals that are moral standards.
people like lucretius and epicureus (sp?) thought this way.
if you reject this assumption of the self, and deny that there are basic human qualities in all humans then there will be no moral stadard emerging. this approach seems to be where you are coming from. i think i agree with kennethamy and matt, the terms objective and subjective have muddled up the question a little. 
Why are “objective” and “subjective” unclear. Well let’s take a test case:
your hedonism.
Pleasure is, I guess, subjective. It is a mental state. But pleasure is objective. That someone is in a state of pleasure is an undeniable fact as long as the person in that state sincerely avows it. It is an objective fact that a person is in a subjective state. So, is pleasure subjective or objective?
How we derive pleasure is subjective, I may like icecream, you may not.
But pleasure itself is an objective notion. (Though that vaguely depends on whether you have some kind of functionalist thory of mind or not. Well not even really functionalist, just that a conscious entity will avoid pain and desire pleasure, if we cut out all other considerations (I could go on for an essay about this but don’t have the time toight, though do feel free to critize such an assumption. Though I do remind anyone who does that if you try to define an entity as having a desire for what you would regard as pain, all you are doing is changing what they designate as pleasure, for them it is not pain!)
Matt, you have illustrated the point about the nonclarity of “subjective” and “objective.”
I think he means that while the cause and nature of pleasure are different and individual to all, the state is sought by all. I personally don’t believe that, because by Matt’s argument anything someone sought after would be designated pleasure and hence the term pleasure would be warped in meaning to “whatever someone seeks”. There are drives which arguably have nothing to do with pleasure, for example survival- not all pessimists kill themselves.
What I really meant by my question is are there any constants in human nature? Are there some things which everyone can enjoy and some which none can, and would that be a valid reason to declare something to be universally good or bad?
Kennethamy, For a very basic example of the clarity of the subj/obj divide, it is objectively true that Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of the UK, it is subjective that she was a good one (someone else may consider her a bad one). Every subj/obj difference is like that, one depends on personal view point, the other does not. Don’t confuse this with the necessary/contingent divide, it is not a necessary truth that she was the Prime Minister, just a contingent one.
GD, I think there are such constants, but they can’t be seen as a universal good because of other contingent factors. Take sex, we might argue that it is a universal good for all adults, but that doesn’t mean sex is a good-in-itself, if the sex happens to be between your wife and your best friend you certainly won’t think it is!
It’s the same with liberty. While it may be that ever person may value liberty (every rational human at least), this doesn’t make it a good in itself, it may be that violating someone else’s liberty may save the world, for example. That’s an appeal to Utility however, but that’s my moral philosophy. The liberty argument wouldn’t stand up in a pure egotistical hedonistic moral structure though.
I think you’re probably right Matt, actions cannot be said to be good or bad without looking at the circumstances… although I’d point out that in the example you mentioned your best friend might think differently from you. I think the utilitarian/liberal idea of allowing people liberty up to the point where they harm another is probably the best compromise, but then this admits that under certain circumstances liberty can be bad and so does not allow it to be an objective standard.
I believe what’s good can’t be proven. It’s perhaps ironic from a western perspective that the essence of life can’t be proven. Sort of makes the whole western philosophy laughable…
We can feel what we have within though, and I truly believe that it is something we have in common, strange and unprovable as it is. What’s good for what we all have within is good. So, everybody should treat each other as one. This means minimising the presence in minds of prestige, hierarchy and other illusionary humoristic human mindinventions, but I sort of think that wouldn’t be such a loss. See ya!
How nice of you to tell us so.
Survival precedes pleasure & the right to survive is an objective fact. It is an objective principal that pursuit of this survival (& by extension personal happiness etc.) must not infringe on the rights of others. If this were not a object fact then having our rights violated would not affect our ability to survive. As individuals sharing a common reality this is impossible.
Hedonism cannot be a end in & of itself as the pure pursuit of pleasure is not always in the best interest of ones survival. Without survival there is no need for the pursuit of pleasure.
Regards,
kennethamy said:
“The terms “subjective” and “objective” are not the names of anything clear.”
I agree 100% with kennethamy here. I am with the side that says that the subject/object dichtonomy has lost alot of power in granting us useful philososophic insights.
In reference to hedonism, I would say that hedonism is not nearly enough, and that humans have an ansolute need to work at least some of the time.
The relation between hedonism and objectivity could work in a negative manner, I suppose. Par example, one man is a masochist the other is not.
So yeah if pleasure is good and pain is bad then there are no objective standards of personal behaviour due to difference in taste.