Contradiction

Pleasure, knowledge, and achievement are intrinsically good (for all); this is Hurka’s base clause (12). Pleasure as Hurka sees it is an intrinsic good. However, I would like to know how Hurka would respond to individuals whom receive pleasure from seeing others in pain, or taking pleasure from their own pain. Because clearly pain is a vice, by another base clause, pain, false belief, and failure in the pursuit of achievement are intrinsically evil. And so, he has a contradiction. Pleasure is an intrinsic good, but pain is a vice.

One way of remedying this issue would be an alternative definition that Hurka dismisses on page 22. It talks about the use of instrumental good and evil, where the intent may be good, but the outcome causes harm to the individual. If we were to use this definition it would allow Hurka to state that pain caused to others is a vice. But another implication is that we can also call something that is intuitively good evil since its outcome harms individuals. This is an implication he does not want, and also the first definition would be better suited to his purpose.
On page 7 Hurka mentions Hedonism. Where if it was the case that Hurka incorporated it into his theory, he would be allowed to say causing pain for one’s own pleasure is a virtue. However, Hurka makes it clear that Hedonism will not be incorporated into his theory since it is subjective, and he wishes to have an objective view of virtues.
Therefore, what can Hurka say to explain away this problem? I think he needs to say something about the right action. He defines “right actions are always those with the best outcomes, or whose outcomes contain the greatest surplus of good over evil” (4). What is the best outcome in this case and would sadism have greater good or evil?