It is implied in your two options a very specific understanding of dukkha.
Again, the Buddhist definition of dukkha is rebirth and the ageing, sickness, sorrow and death that comes with it.
Alternatively, a possible hedonistic understanding of dukkha is simply the absence of pleasure.
Hence, a perfectly logical hedonist would seek to fill his waking life with pleasure of the senses, hence maximizing what they see as sukkha and consequently minimising what they take as dukkha.
Also, a materialistic hedonistic perspective would be that death would be neither pleasurable or painful, it is just the cessation of being, with elements breaking up and going their own way. In absence of rebirth, this is analogous to the final cessation of parinibbana.
It is very important to understand how different groups define, explicitly or implicitly, what dukkha is.
And, of course, the EBT definition of dukkha encompasses necessarily rebirth - to the discontent of the “secular Buddhists” (whatever that means) out there.
“Reverend Sāriputta, what is happiness and what is suffering?”
“Rebirth is suffering, reverend, no rebirth is happiness.
When there is rebirth, you can expect this kind of suffering.
Cold, heat, hunger, thirst, defecation, and urination.
Contact with fire, clubs, and knives.
And relatives and friends get together and annoy you.
When there is rebirth, this is the kind of suffering you can expect.
When there is no rebirth, you can expect this kind of happiness.
No cold, heat, hunger, thirst, defecation, or urination. No contact with fire, clubs, or knives.
And relatives and friends don’t get together and annoy you.
When there is no rebirth, this is the kind of happiness you can expect.”
– AN10.65