Response to the following:
Give some commentary on what is wrong with hedonism, the theory that goodness is to be defined simply as pleasure.
Goodness Pleasure or Community:
The topic is rather philosophical and is all about perceived value of goodness and the pleasure associated with it. Rather the author argues that the giver/or the originator of pleasure cannot be bigger than the outcome as the outcome includes the aspect of the originator.
The topic also discusses abstract feelings of certain actions, hugging and the pleasure associated with the act of hugging fellow being. However he iterates that the bearer of the pleasure also is quite important. The inherent sense of being the bearer of a simple thing like a hug ensures that the act of hugging is meaningful and pleasurable to the hosts.
Even the aspect of having a 'bad' life is subject to the relative positioning of the 'lack of goodness/happiness' as even in the absence of the happiness do one feel unhappy and sad. He states a mantra of Goodness for which essentially means that the goodness is due to whatever is helpful to object. When we see the example of ticks and humans, we can see that since ticks are bad for humans, whatever is bad for ticks will be good for humans.
There are some examples which makes for a cacophony of thought processes as problems, community of animals & natural enmity amongst life forms. He hypothesizes that the life form will consider everything as good if it starts considering that all other life forms are nothing but it's family/community. Once the community involvement is imbibed, the feeling of happiness and camaraderie will be infused amongst the life forms. This will lead towards goodness amongst the community as also individualistic 'feeling good' factor.