At its simplest, ethical hedonism is the claim that all and only pleasure has positive importance and all and only pain or displeasure has negative importance.
I understand this as meaning that all and only conscious experiences have moral importance. However, I think there is a difference between:
“Ethical value is about how it feels—and nothing else matters” (the way I interpret SEP’s definition).
“The better it feels, the more ethical value – and nothing else matters” (your suggested interpretation).
The 2nd of these seems to be about hedonic utilitarianism, not just hedonism as the 1st.
I’m saying that no experiences are valuable in themselves and people can – depending on their life goals – decide to forego eons of optimized fun in exchange for something that provides them with deeper meaning.
It looks like such choices would be compatible with desire and objective list theories, but I realise now that these are encompassed by my (probably unusual) interpretation of hedonism, as conscious experiences are still central to both of them.
Thanks for clarifying.
I understand this as meaning that all and only conscious experiences have moral importance. However, I think there is a difference between:
“Ethical value is about how it feels—and nothing else matters” (the way I interpret SEP’s definition).
“The better it feels, the more ethical value – and nothing else matters” (your suggested interpretation).
The 2nd of these seems to be about hedonic utilitarianism, not just hedonism as the 1st.
It looks like such choices would be compatible with desire and objective list theories, but I realise now that these are encompassed by my (probably unusual) interpretation of hedonism, as conscious experiences are still central to both of them.