It is impossible for altruistic Hedonism to evade the same consummation except at the cost of consistency. No general code of morality could be established on the basis of pleasure. Pleasure is essentially subjective feeling, and only the individual is the competent judge of how much pleasure or pain a course of action affords him. What is more pleasurable for one may be less so for another. Hence, on hedonistic grounds, it is evident that there could be no permanently and universally valid dividing line between right and wrong.
Hedonism has no ground for moral obligation, no sanction for duty.
If I must pursue my own happiness, and if conduct which leads to happiness is good, the worst reproach that can be addressed to me, however base my conduct may be, is that I have made an imprudent choice. Hedonists have appropriated the term happiness as an equivalent to the totality of pleasurable or agreeable feeling. The Aristotelean idea is more correctly rendered in English by the term well-being. It means the state of perfection in which man is constituted when he exercises his highest faculty, in its highest function, on its highest good. But it must be observed that this principle may have another genesis and another part to play in ethics than those assigned to it by Hedonism.