Moore, however, says this is not always the case, as often the idea of the desirable object brings pleasure, and this is what causes desire. His primary reason for believing that Mill s conception of pleasure as the sole object of desire is false is that if one desires nothing else but pleasure, desire cannot lead one to take any sort of action, even if that action would result in pleasure. The object that causes the pleasure must be part of the desire in order for the desire to give direction to one s actions. For example, I would not be in any way motivated to eat a steak if my sole desire was for the pleasure that the steak would bring and did not include the steak itself. He then points out that if he is correct and pleasure is a part of desire, then it makes no sense to define pleasure as the sole object of desire, lest desire always be its own object, leading to infinite regress.
Pleasure alone is the object of desire.
Desire is the primary motivation of our actions. If 1 and 2, all of our actions are solely directed toward pleasure. All of our actions are not solely directed toward pleasure. Pleasure alone is not the object of our desire. The third Hedonistic principle attacked by Moore is the proposition that some things are desired in and of themselves, because they are a part of happiness .