Non-responsive: If you concede that it's impossible to create a criteria for what "good" is without falling into the same pitfalls you identify, then your theory is bunk.
I never said that it's impossible to create a criteria for what the good is. What I said, which was overwhelmingly clear in the article and based on my comment, is that whatever the good is, this argument shows that we should maximize it. This doesn't settle the question of what the good is.
Agreed. I strongly disagree that pleasure per se is most of what constitutes the good, and that didn't interfere in any way with my complete agreement with this post.
This except replace "deontology" with "your superficial intuitions about pleasure"
Whether pleasure constitutes the good is a substantive question. These arguments, if successful, show that we should maximize the good!
Non-responsive: If you concede that it's impossible to create a criteria for what "good" is without falling into the same pitfalls you identify, then your theory is bunk.
I never said that it's impossible to create a criteria for what the good is. What I said, which was overwhelmingly clear in the article and based on my comment, is that whatever the good is, this argument shows that we should maximize it. This doesn't settle the question of what the good is.
Agreed. I strongly disagree that pleasure per se is most of what constitutes the good, and that didn't interfere in any way with my complete agreement with this post.