scholarly journals Desire Satisfactionism and the Problem of Irrelevant Desires

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lukas
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Derek Parfit ◽  
Fatal Disease ◽  
Desire Satisfaction ◽  
Desire Satisfactionism ◽  
Thomas Scanlon

Desire-satisfaction theories about welfare come in two main varieties: unrestricted and restricted. Both varieties hold that a person's welfare is determined entirely by the satisfactions and frustrations of his desires. But while the restricted theories count only some of a person’s desires as relevant to his well-being, the unrestricted theories count all of his desires as relevant. Because unrestricted theories count all desires as relevant they are vulnerable to a wide variety of counterexamples involving desires that seem obviously irrelevant. Derek Parfit offers a well-known example involving a stranger afflicted with what seems to be a fatal disease. Similar examples are offered by Thomas Scanlon, James Griffin, Shelly Kagan, and others. In this paper I defend a simple unrestricted desire-based theory of welfare from the claim that some of our desires are irrelevant to how well our lives go. I begin by introducing the theory I aim to defend. I then formulate the Irrelevant-Desires Problem and reject a few rationales for its key premise. I then consider and reject a few flawed responses to the problem. I finally offer an obvious but widely overlooked response: I bite the bullet. My overall goal is to dissuade those sympathetic to a desire-based approach to welfare from rejecting unrestricted forms of desire satisfactionism simply because some desires may seem irrelevant to how well our lives go.

Human Flourishing Versus Desire Satisfaction

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Arneson
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Good Life ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Surprising Result ◽  
Human Flourishing ◽  
Prudential Value ◽  
Desire Satisfaction ◽  
Individual Good ◽  
Helping Others ◽  
Good For

What is the good for human persons? If I am trying to lead the best possible life I could lead, not the morally best life, but the life that is best for me, what exactly am I seeking?This phrasing of the question I will be pursuing may sound tendentious, so some explanation is needed. What is good for one person, we ordinarily suppose, can conflict with what is good for other persons and with what is required by morality. A prudent person seeks her own good efficiently; she selects the best available means to her good. If we call the value that a person seeks when she is being prudent “prudential value,” then an alternative rendering of the question to be addressed in this essay is “What is prudential value?” We can also say that an individual flourishes or has a life high in well-being when her life is high in prudential value. Of course, these common-sense appearances that the good for an individual, the good for other persons, and the requirements of morality often are in conflict might be deceiving. For all that I have said here, the correct theory of individual good might yield the result that sacrificing oneself for the sake of other people or for the sake of a morally worthy cause can never occur, because helping others and being moral always maximize one's own good. But this would be the surprising result of a theory, not something we should presuppose at the start of inquiry. When a friend has a baby and I express a conventional wish that the child have a good life, I mean a life that is good for the child, not a life that merely helps others or merely respects the constraints of morality. After all, a life that is altruistic and perfectly moral, we suppose, could be a life that is pure hell for the person who lives it—a succession of horrible headaches marked by no achievements or attainments of anything worthwhile and ending in agonizing death at a young age. So the question remains, what constitutes a life that is good for the person who is living it?

Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion

Utilitas ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torbjorn Tannsjo
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Derek Parfit ◽  
Worth Living ◽  
Repugnant Conclusion ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Hedonistic Utilitarianism ◽  
Sentient Beings ◽  
Very High

Derek Parfit has famously pointed out that ‘total’ utilitarian views, such as classical hedonistic utilitarianism, lead to the conclusion that, to each population of quite happy persons there corresponds a more extensive population with people living lives just worth living, which is (on the whole) better. In particular, for any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living. This world is better if the sum total of well-being is great enough, and it is great enough if only enough sentient beings inhabit it. This conclusion has been considered by Parfit and others to be ‘repugnant’.

Well-Being

Life's Values ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 71-115
Author(s):  
Alan H. Goldman
Keyword(s):  
Good Life ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Successful Theory ◽  
Desire Satisfaction ◽  
Personal Value ◽  
Good For ◽  
The Individual

Well-being is what makes life valuable or good for the individual whose life it is. It is the all-inclusive category of personal value. This chapter evaluates the leading accounts: hedonism (pleasure is the measure of well-being), perfectionism (development of human capacities is the measure), objective lists (numerous objective goods make up a good life), and desire satisfaction. Fatal objections are raised to the first three, and an idealized desire satisfaction account is defended against objections typically raised by others to this kind of theory. The successful theory must capture our concept, unify and explain why various things are good for individual persons, and show why we are rationally motivated to pursue well-being.

Desire and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (279) ◽  
pp. 371-384
Author(s):  
Ashley Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Derek Parfit ◽  
Standard View ◽  
Desire Satisfaction ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Intuitive Judgments

Abstract Desire satisfaction has not received detailed philosophical examination. Yet intuitive judgments about the satisfaction of desires have been used as data points guiding theories of desire, desire content, and the semantics of ‘desire’. This paper examines desire satisfaction and the standard propositional view of desire. Firstly, I argue that there are several distinct concepts of satisfaction. Secondly, I argue that separating them defuses a difficulty for the standard view in accommodating desires that Derek Parfit described as ‘implicitly conditional on their own persistence’, a problem posed by Shieva Kleinschmidt, Kris McDaniel, and Ben Bradley. The solution undercuts a key motivation for rejecting the standard view in favour of more radical accounts proposed in the literature.

scholarly journals How to Use the Paradox of Hedonism

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-411
Author(s):  
Alexander Dietz
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Desire Satisfactionism ◽  
Hybrid Theory

Abstract The paradox of hedonism is the idea that intrinsically desiring nothing other than pleasure can prevent one from obtaining pleasure. In this article, I show how the paradox of hedonism can be used as the basis for an objection against hedonism about well-being, and one that is more defensible than has been commonly recognized. Moreover, I argue that the challenge presented by the paradox can be used to target not only hedonism about well-being, but also desire satisfactionism and the hybrid theory. However, I argue that certain sophisticated versions of all three theories can escape it.

Asymmetrism about Desire Satisfactionism and Time

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eden Lin
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Desire Satisfaction ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Desire Satisfactionism ◽  
New View

Desire-satisfaction theories of welfare must answer the timing question: when do you benefit from the satisfaction of one of your desires? There are three existing views about this: the Time of Desire view, on which you benefit at just those times when you have the desire; the Time of Object view, on which you benefit just when the object of your desire obtains; and Concurrentism, on which you benefit just when you have the desire and its object obtains. This paper introduces a new view, Asymmetrism, on which you sometimes benefit at the time of desire and sometimes benefit at the time of object. On this view, if the time at which you have a desire is later than the time at which its object obtains, then you benefit at the time of the desire. On the other hand, if the time of object is later than the time of desire, then you benefit at the time of object. Three arguments are given for the conclusion that Asymmetrism is superior to the Time of Desire and Time of Object views. It is argued that Asymmetrism and Concurrentism are the most credible answers to the timing question.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Tiberius
Keyword(s):  
Life Satisfaction ◽  
Practical Problem ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The Other ◽  
Desire Satisfactionism ◽  
Satisfaction Theory ◽  
Objective List

The approach of this book is to defend a theory of well-being that solves a particular practical problem, namely, the problem of how to help others, particularly our friends, attain greater well-being. This introductory chapter sets out this problem, explains why it is a problem, provides some illustrative examples, and introduces the value fulfillment theory as a solution to the problem. The final section of the chapter compares the value fulfillment theory to other theories in philosophy and psychology (hedonism, life satisfaction theory, desire satisfactionism, eudaimonism, objective list theory). The aim here is not to prove the other theories are wrong, but to make space for the value fulfillment alternative.

Consciousness

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-40
Author(s):  
Charles Siewert
Keyword(s):  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Desire Satisfaction ◽  
Objective List

This chapter gives consciousness a central role in value. It begins by showing how we can interpret and defend the idea that many common forms of consciousness are intrinsically beneficial to us—even if we don’t embrace subjectivism about well-being. It then shows how we can rationally accord these benefits such importance that we would find our own continued existence worthless without them. Neither objective list nor desire-satisfactionist views of well-being threaten this result. Moreover, regarding subjects’ desire-satisfaction: we can see that this bears on a non-instrumental concern for them only if they are capable of subjective experience: consciousness makes desires matter morally. Finally, the moral significance of consciousness is further deepened by seeing how our self-expressive experience entitles us to a respect that is due beings who make themselves accountable to norms—and how, since we are such beings, our lives have irreplaceable value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document