[Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism

[vulcanlogician]

Here's an argument against Hedonistic Moral Realism:

Premise 1: For hedonistic moral realism to be true moral realism as a whole has to be capable of being true.

Premise 2: Moral realism as a whole is only true if the foundation of moral values is something mind-independent.

Premise 4: According to hedonistic moral realism the foundation of moral values is pain and/or pleasure.

Premise 5: Neither pain nor pleasure is something mind-independent.

Conclusion: Hedonistic Moral Realism is false.

Thoughts on this argument?

I take issue with premise 2. Moral realism must be true regardless of our opinions, but nothing prevents a moral theory from being concerned with a mental state.

Hedonism makes a lot of sense as a moral theory. In fact, hedonism is one of the reasons I'm a pluralist. What good moral theory permits  acts that create large amounts of suffering? What moral assessment denies the importance of happiness as an end?

The hedonist considers pleasure/happiness good and pain/suffering bad. This is perfectly in line with our intuitions. When we experience pain we think "bad." And pleasure makes sense as an intrinsic good.