You need to be a little careful here BB, and not put words in his mouth.
He said only that enjoyment of life is the purpose of it. Not that success and enjoyment are the measures of right living.
And he's right about that.
To extend his remarks, each and every human being's premeditated actions are driven by his desire to please himself as he sees fit (i.e., act in advancement of his values, however good or corrupt they may be). Even actions to which we traditionally ascribe greater purpose (altruistic ones for example) are really subject to the same rules when analyzed honestly.
Men seek to please their gods, or care for the sick, or love their families, or smoke a rock of crack, or engage in promiscuity, or contribute to charity, or even be debaucherous drunken stumblebums... because it pleases them to do so moreso than the other alternatives they weighed in the process of choosing the path they did.
It is man's purpose.
And each wishes to act pursuant to purpose (however good or corrupt the values that determine what pleases him may be).
And the only way that ALL may act pursuant to purpose, is for each abstain from initiated force or fraud.
Man may claim the ability to act by force, subjugating others to his own pursuit of happiness if he wishes.
But he may not do so rightfully.
His ability to claim the moral authority to act by right, is contingent upon recognizing the equal claim in others.
Failure to recognize the equal claim in others, voids any claim one might make to the moral authority to act pursuant to purpose one's self.
Good grief, OWK, what a muddle! Or am I misunderstanding you? It seems to me you're saying that a man is free to do whatever he wants to, regardless of whether his values are good or corrupt; and that it is wrong in principle to violate his freedom to do whatever it pleases him to do by means of force (or "fraud").
But what if the man is a child rapist, or a cannibal? Your moral theory leaves society utterly defenseless to restrain that person from perpetrating such atrocious acts. Yet it is precisely here that society requires forceful restraint of such a person. For he endangers the society, and society has the right, even the duty, to defend itself against such creatures.
This is not a question about the "pursuit of happiness" on society's part here. This is a pursuit of basic safety and security, and any sane person would understand that restraining force can be legitimately invoked in such cases.
Is it a correct understanding of your moral code to say that the child rapist/cannibal has all the rights, and society has none?
Man may claim the ability to act by force, subjugating others to his own pursuit of happiness if he wishes.
But he may not do so rightfully.
His ability to claim the moral authority to act by right, is contingent upon recognizing the equal claim in others.
On what basis do you make the claim that one choice is right?
Shalom.