The Hedonistic Imperative

Pearce mainly argues from a utilitarian ethic. If we assume happiness is equivalent to value, he asserts, then our goal should necessarily be the abolition of suffering and the instating of continual happiness for all conscious organisms. Pearce's idealistic ontological views also lead him to conclude that no living thing should be exempt from the abolitionist program.

Furthermore, by rejecting dualism, Pearce opens the door to nontraditional means of attaining his goal. If mental states are equivalent to physical states (or if there are no physical states, or if mental states are causally inert (the view of epiphenomenalists)), then -- at least in theory -- we can scientifically determine the neurological basis of happiness. At this point we would have the option of chemically or genetically ensuring permanent happiness for all organisms.

Criticisms

Since Pearce's theory holds conflicting views with free will and personal liberty, considering pleasure rather than freedom as 'ultima ratio', the risk of global totalitarism has been raised by critics like Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand, and the failures of such utopia have been portrayed in fiction in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Pearce's views also contrast starkly with schools of thought which do not hold human happiness as the ultimate source of value. Compare, for instance, the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, which holds that creative urge known as the "Will To Power" as the fundamental driving force of nature. Other philosophies such as Buddhism consider suffering to be an inherent property of material existence.

See also