Problems for desire theory

Central claims of the desire theory:

(1) if something is good for us, then it fulfills our desires

(2) if something fulfills our desires, then it is good for us

Is it possible that there exists something that's good for us, but fails to fulfill our desires?

a. pleasant surprises

b. accompany of children

c. prevent suicide attempts

Is it true that something is good for us if it fulfills our desires?

a. desires based on false belief

   In terms of desire theory, it is only informed desires whose satisfaction will improve our lives. 

b. Desire theory doesn't assign any intrinsic value to pleasure. If desire theorists are right, then your life goes better just so long as more of ur desires are satisfied. 

c. Getting what you want can sometimes be a huge letdown. 

d. You don't realize that you have achieved the goal. 

e. Our desires are often shaped by the way we have been raised. What if your desires are impoverished and myopic. 

f.  a paradox: you want to harm yourself, which will decrease your life quality objectively. But by desire theory, you are actually better off subjectively. 

g. if someone knows that his deepest desire is never going to be achieved and wants to commit suicide, how does desire theory cope with that. 

Desire satisfaction theory

Desire satisfaction theory: your life goes well for you to the extent that you get what you want.

Based on this theory, our deepest desires determine what counts as life's improvement or failures. On this line of thinking, nothing is an essential ingredient in making everyone's life better off. (if he doesn't desire it) Since people desire very different things, there is a wide variety of good lives.

Objective theory of human welfare: what directly contributes to a good life is fixed independently of your desires and your opinions about what is important.

Problem with objective value theory:
(a) If X is truly good for you, then you will be motivated to get X--so long as you know about X and know how to get it.
(b) Many people who know about X and know how to get it are not motivated to become wealthy.
(c) Thus, X will not improve the lives of such people.

Desire theorists reject all objective theories of welfare. In fact, they don't face the previous problem. Indeed,
(a) If something is truly good to you, then it will satisfy your desire.
(b) If something will satisfy your desires, then you will be motivated to get it
(c) So if something is good for you, then you will be motivated to get it.

In addition, desire theory can support the view that there is always good reason to look our for ourselves.
(a) if sth. makes us better off, then it satisfies our desires
(b) if sth. satisfies our desires, then we have reason to obtain it
(c) so if sth. makes us better off, we have reason to obtain it

Hedonism

Instrumental goods: things that are valuable because of the good things they bring about.
wa
Intrinsically valuable goods: things whose goodness is self contained and valuable in its own right, even if they bring nothing else in its wake.

Happiness is intrinsically valuable. In fact, for hedonists, this is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, and unhappiness is the only thing that directly reduces our quality of life.

According to hedonists, a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and is free of pain.

Two kinds of pleasure:
(1) physical pleasure
(2) attitudinal pleasure (enjoyment)

Hedonists believe that happiness is attitudinal pleasure. Hedonism should be understood as the view that enjoyment, rather than physical pleasure, is the key to the good life.

Epicurus argued that the most pleasant condition is one of inner peace. The ideal state of tranquility comes largely from two sources: moderation in all physical matters, and intellectual clarity about what is truly important.

John Stuart Mill argued that pleasures come in different levels of quality, and that the best pleasures for human beings were those that come only through hard work. Hedonism explains why there are many ways to live a good life: there are many paths to happiness. What makes one person happy is largely a matter of his personal choice. However, hedonism does not allow us to have the final say about what is good for us.

Critiques of hedonism:
(1) The paradox of hedonism
If something always makes us better off, then it seems reasonable to try very hard to acquire it. With happiness, however, this might backfire--those who try real hard to make themselves happier almost never succeed. This is the paradox of hedonism. Let's see the following argument:
(a) If happiness is the only thing that directly makes us better off, then it is rational to single-mindedly pursue it.
(b) It isn't rational to do it.
(c) Therefore, happiness is not the only thing that directly makes us better off.

The argument is valid, but probably not sound. The bottom line is even if happiness is all that matters, it may not be rational to aim for it directly. (which means premise (a) is false)
So this objection to hedonism is not sound.

(2) Evil pleasures
Some people are happy to do awful things. Argument:
(a) If hedonism is true, then happiness that comes from evil deeds is as good as happiness that comes from kind and decent actions.
(b) Happiness that comes from evil deeds is not as good as happiness that comes from kind and decent actions.
(c) Hedonism is false.

However, there is confusion in this statement, which undermines its validity.
Why? According to hedonists: happiness gained from evil deeds can improve our lives just as much as happiness that comes from virtue. Thus, hedonists reject premise (b).

(3) The two worlds (W.D. Ross)
Consider two worlds that contain identical amounts of happiness and misery. In one of these, the people are all virtuous; in the other, they are all vicious. According to hedonism, the two worlds are equally good. Argument:
(a) if hedonism is true, then any two situations containing identical amounts of happiness and unhappiness are equally good.
(b) some such situations are not equally good; some are better than others.
(c) hedonism is false.

Hedonists reject premise (a). Their view is not about what makes a situation or a world good, but about what makes a life good for the person who lives in it. Hedonism, thus, doesn't tell us how to determine the value of the world. So it is not committed to the view that two worlds containing equal amounts of happiness must be equally good.

(4) False happiness
(a) If hedonism is true, then our lives go well to the extent that we are happy.
(b) It is not the case that our lives go well to the extent that we are happy; those whose happiness is based on false beliefs have worse lives than those whose happiness is based on true beliefs, even if both lives are equally happy.
(c) hedonism is false.

This claim assumes that the source of happiness determines how beneficial that happiness is. But hedonists deny this. For them, happiness is happiness. However, a pleasant life of illusion is less good for you than an equally pleasant life based on real achievement and true beliefs.

(5) autonomy
We want autonomy--the power to guide our life through our own free choices---even if it sometimes costs us our happiness. Preserving our autonomy is vitally important, even if it doesn't always make us happier.

Paternalism: someone's limiting your liberty against your will, but for your own good.

Argument:
(a) if hedonism is true, then autonomy contributes to a good life only insofar as it makes us happy
(b) autonomy sometimes directly contributes to a good life, even when it fails to make us happy
(c) hedonism is false

The argument is legit.

(6) Life trajectory
(a) if hedonism is true, then the overall quality of life depends entirely on the amount of happiness and unhappiness it contains
(b) the overall quality of life depends on at least one other factor: whether one's life reflects an "upward" or "downward" trajectory
(c) hedonism is thus false

seems good

(7) Unhappiness as a symptom of harm
Argument from multiple harms
(a) if hedonism is true, then you can be harmed by something only because it saddens you
(b) you can be harmed in other ways
(c) hedonism is false
Hedonism fails to appreiciate that unhappiness is often a symptom that something intrinsically valuable--something other than happiness--has been lost.

1/14/2015

Value theory: What is the good life? What's worth pursuing for its own sake?

Normative ethics: What're our fundamental moral duties? What counts as virtues, vices and why?

Metaethics: What's the status of moral claims and advice?

Certainly, many laws require what morality requires, and forbid what morality forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and that shows that morality is something different from the law. Good manners, similarly, are not the same thing as morally good conduct. The same is true when it comes to self-interest or tradition. In terms of tradition, people sometimes speak of conventional morality, which is the set of traditional principles that are widely shared within a culture or society. However, some social standards and mutual endorsement can be morally mistaken. As a result, the moral we refer to in this context are standards that are independent of conventional morality and ca be used to critically evaluate its merits. This implies the existence of some independent, critical morality that
(1) doesn't have its origin in social agreements
(2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular prejudices
(3) can serve as the true standard for determining when conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen into error.

How to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments.
(1) identify all of an argument's premises
(2) imagine that all of them are true
(3) ask yourself: suppose all premises were true, could the conclusion be false? If yes, the argument is invalid. If no, the statement is valid.

But a valid argument is not enough, because in testing the logical structure we assumed the truth of premises, which might not be the case. What we need is a sound argument, and that means the logic is valid and premises are true.

Example:
premise: it is morally acceptable for nonhuman animals to kill and eat other animals
conclusion: it is morally acceptable for human beings to kill and eat other nonhuman animals.

the premise doesn't logically support the conclusion. (What is morally acceptable for animals is not necessarily morally acceptable for us)

This shows that this particular way of defending is no good.

A valid argument:
premises:
(1)if it is morally acceptable for nonhuman animals to kill and eat another, then it is morally acceptable for humans to kill and eat other nonhuman animals.
(2)it is morally acceptable for nonhuman animals to kill and eat other animals
conclusion:
it is morally acceptable for human beings to kill and eat other nonhuman animals

The argument is valid but the first premise is wrong. Animals are not moral agents--they cannot control their behavior through moral reasoning, and thus it is not convincing to look to animals for moral guidance.