support the latter using happy consequences as justification for actions, any actions so far as we attain maximum utility. In this simplified explanation this apparently commonsensical approach now seems quite bizarre.
             Consider an example of this Hedonistic and Utilitarianistic reasoning. Let's say an individual had lost contact with his father who had immigrated to a foreign country. The father falls ill with some terribly agonizing disease and dies alone and in pain in this foreign land. The Utilitarian would compare the level of happiness if the individual was left oblivious only with pleasant memories of his childhood or if he was told of his father's unpleasant and painful demise. In so doing it would seem right (according to Utilitarianism) to leave the individual in his oblivious state as the truth would probably cause him great unhappiness. Yet somehow this just doesn't seem to sit well, the man is his father and somehow he ought to know of his fate despite the sadness. If we follow the structure of the argument, happiness is caused by morally right actions, in the example lying causes happiness and therefore would be deemed morally right. So we can see that the seemingly commonsensical argument is actually open to powerful objection.
             Some Utilitarians have acknowledged the problem and attempted to modify and resolve the argument by attempting to reject Hedonism. Philosopher G.E. Moore listed three things that he deemed intrinsically good; pleasure, f
             ...