What does it mean to live a good life or to be well off? Does one single standard exist for everyone?

These are the question I sought to answer when I began writing this blog. 

Specifically, I said: 
"Whether you believe that you are living the good life already, or would like to know how to go about living the good life, or maybe you are indifferent- whatever the case may be, feel free to join me as I dive into a journey of contemplation. Maybe we'll find the answers to our questions. Maybe we won't. However, what I do know is that if we attempt to reflect more closely on what sort of life is worth living, then we will learn more, and therefore know more. We will surely learn more about the possibilities of what a good life could entail. To me, this only means being closer to figuring out what we ought to do to live the life that would ultimately make us best off. The idea of achieving this seems to make the contemplation and journey as a whole worthwhile. It may be the case that you find that you were already living the good life. If so, this journey could result in validation."

I am personally not quite sure whether I have any clear cut answers regarding what the good life is. 

However, as a result of my exploration of many of the different ethical theories, I can say one thing… that is, I now know more. I have been exposed to many different views and I can say that to me, it seems as though no single standard exists for everyone. If there was a single standard then it seems that there would be no disagreement in regards to morality. However, it is clear that our survey of ethical theories has shown us that there is much disagreement in ethics. Many different people, believe many different things. It is now up to you to decide which view seems most plausible. I hope that you have also learned a lot as a result of our journey and are now better equipped than when we started to formulate your own views about morality and what you take the good life to be! 

The good life is also a popular theme and topic to sing about...

Let's wrap it up with Frank Sinatra's idea's about the good life: 

http://youtu.be/Sdrg7ayezXo

However, R&B singer Robin Thicke seems to have his own idea's about the good life that he has so gracefully shared with the world:

http://youtu.be/c1yJESa5s0Q

It seems that ultimately, everyone has different idea's about THE GOOD LIFE:

Primate Ethics

In Frans De Waal’ s Chimpanzee Justice, an example is offered, which is meant to show how the principle of reciprocity prevalent among chimpanzees is governed by the same sense of moral rightness and justice as it is among humans. Later Singer presents the principle of reciprocity by way of Confucius’ , A Single Word, in order to show how humans also value this principle just like primates. However, it is not the case that ALL human communities value the principle of reciprocity. There are different cultures in the world who hold many different values from one another. It seems as though Singer makes too bold of a statement when saying that significant ethical principle carry weight in EVERY human community because it is too general of a statement. A less bold assertion would be more acceptable. If Singer could show that every single human community holds a certain ethical principle, then we can buy into this claim, but he fails to do so in the two aforementioned examples. If Singer were able to convince us that his assertion were true, then this might show us that morality transcends into beings other than humans, and that would be a huge thing to show because we could assume that the moral community might transcend to all living things. Human ethical theories might apply to other species as well. However this is a very bold claim to make and it seems hard to prove because now we could have to consider new questions. Questions such as, whether certain ethical principles are universal in all communities? Also, whether all living communities ought to follow similar principles, why or why not, amongst many other questions.  Overall, with the reading Singer offers, it does not seem that we can accept his initial assertion seeing as he does not seem justified in making such claims. 
Similarly, in the NY time article Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior by Nicholas Wade (linked below), Wade seems to suggest that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes. In addition he goes on to say that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped. This is certainly an interesting and different view about the origins of ethics as compared to the views I explore in the blog's earlier posts (under the origins of ethics header). Which view do you find more convincing? 

Article referenced above: http://primates.com/morality/index.html

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism is the view that advances that some moral rules really are correct, and that these determine which moral claims are true and which are false. For the ethical relatvist these standards are never objectively correct, rather, these standards are relative to each person, or each society. Thus, a moral standard is correct just because a person, or society is deeply committed to it. This means that the standards that are appropriate for some people may not be appropriate for others. Thus, morality is a human construct. In other words, we make it up.
The other day, I was reading the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/opinion/l-different-cultures-have-different-values-227889.htmlThe author discusses the notion of different cultures having different values. The author discusses the Chinese culture and values and how they differ from American culture and values. More specifically he delves into the topic of meats. He ponders why it is such an issue for American's that the Chinese eat dog meat. He wonders why one culture would consider themselves more civilized based on the kind of meat they eat. He goes further to say "I am not ashamed of eating dog. I have a different color of skin, I speak a different language and I come from a different cultural background, so I sometimes eat different food (meat in this case) too." He ends his article with what to me, were truly powerful words: "In today's world, linked by common interest, it is perhaps wise and beneficial not to impose our own values on others." He displayed the views of an ethical relativist. And to be frank, his view seemed to make a lot of sense. It seems that people, and even societies ought to not be judged or chastised for  having a different value than the next person. By the ethical relativists view, however, it is okay for people to disagree and find the views of the next person or society inappropriate. This article is interesting because it seems to highlight a problem the ethical relativists deal with. That is, of embracing the notion that standards are never objectively correct, rather, these standards are relative to each person, or each society and yet being accepting to notion of the next person or society disagreeing with one's held standards/values.

The role of observation in ethics

An short analysis of our in class readings: 
The belief that scientific theories are theory-laden is not uncommon. In our readings for this week we can notice that Sturgeon agrees with Harman about the aforementioned. It seems like Sturgeon is saying that theory can be good for observation, and that the observation can justify the theory simultaneously. Essentially, unlike Harman, Sturgeon seems to think that moral theories can be tested in the way that scientific theories can be tested. He offers the hitler example, in which Hitler can be viewed as an amorally admirable person or a morally vicious person, similar to science, where we have theory choice. He believes that both science and morality are no different when it comes to the explanatory chain between them, and observation. In response to Harman, Sturgeon claims that moral beliefs can be rejected when they are not consistent with other moral beliefs and observations. For, Sturgeon this is exactly like science. We believe facts because we believe them to be true. Overall, Sturgeon accepts that ethics is scientific in that it can be a reliable source of knowledge and that moral facts can cause the world to be a certain way. He thinks that Harman does not succeed in convincing us that moral facts don't cause the world to be a certain way.
Essentially, Harman considers whether moral principles can be tested and confirmed in the way scientific principles can. He conducts a thought experiment to confirm and test a moral principle but concludes that ethics has an apparent immunity from observational testing. The more precise challenge that comes from this claim is that we can never objectively know that any moral belief or value is wrong or right because of this gap in the explanatory chain from the principle of observation to morality. Harman explains that this often is the explanation as to why moral nihilists hold their positions. If nothing can be decisively wrong or right, then morality cannot be objective. More specifically, this is a challenge because what we perceive may be dependent on preconceived notions. And so, if we attempt to justify something we observe as being morally wrong, our experiences and cultural beliefs play into our conclusions, and so though we may believe something is wrong simply because the act itself is wrong- our preconceived notions are more than likely factoring into our observations. He offers the kids burning a cat example. So many different beliefs factor into whether what we see can be deemed morally wrong or morally acceptable. For example, we hold beliefs about animals, and separate from that, beliefs about kids, and so on. Unlike in science, we cannot test our observations by objective standards, and so we can never truly justify our moral observations.  This certainly seems like a plausible view. However, people still so use justifications to explain their moral actions. This happens every day. Is it really problematic that we cannot test our observations in the same way that science does? Additionally, many claim that theory choice in science as well as the entire  process of science itself, contains subjectivity and so we cannot categorize it as privileged or as an authority to tell us how the world really works. In other words, that science cannot tell us objective truths about the world. If this is the case, it seems that Harman would need to re-think his claims, and it seems that what he conceives to be problematic, isn't really as problematic when science isn't an authority either in regards to testing our observations in search for objective truths. 

Nihilism & objective morality

Is living immorally good?

In The Origins of Herd Morality, Nietzsche presents several ideas that are similar to those advanced by Thrasymachus. He characterizes certain drives as strong and dangerous. Most of these drives, being drives that are generally found to be immoral by society as a whole. Nietzsche’s ideas seem to correlate with Thrasymachus’ idea of morality being the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves when he calls fear the mother of morality. However, Thrasymachus suggests that he who is immoral especially on the large scale is the person who is in the grand scheme of things, considered to be stronger and with great power, freer and more masterful as compared to those who are moral.

            Additionally, Nietzsche mentions, “a superior independent intellect, a will to stand alone, even superior rationality, are felt to be dangers;” and even labeled as evil. This sounds similar to the idea advanced by Thrasymachus, which says that those who act immoral on a large scale, for example by taking the possessions of the citizens and then kidnapping and enslaving the possessors as well being thought of positively even though this is considered an immoral act by most. Essentially, this is a danger to the ones eligible to be enslaved and kidnapped and the person, by superior rationality is able to become a danger to the aforementioned weaker people. All in all, although he is viewed as evil, at the end of the day he is more powerful, freer and more masterful than someone who acts morally. In this sense, the ideas of Thrasymachus and Nietzsche are similar. By these views, it seems that living immorally is not so bad after all. However, these are views that most do not agree with. 

On the Origins of Ethics

 In Moral Virtue, How Produced, Aristotle discusses his view on virtue. He says that there are two kinds of virtue and that these two kinds of virtue come about in two different ways, neither of them through nature. Aristotle says that there exists intellectual virtue, which comes about by birth, experience, and time. This seems plausible because when someone is born, they do not know everything making it so nothing can be learned throughout the rest of their lives. In contrast, people learn, acquire knowledge, and develop intellect as time passes, and as they experience new things.  Thus, it seems that nature and intellectual virtue are separate. In addition, there exists moral virtue according to Aristotle that of which comes about through habit since “nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature.” He offers the example of fire. One cannot habituate fire to move downwards -as it naturally moves upwards. Thus, since moral virtue comes from doing things over and over, then it is also separate from nature. For Aristotle, the relationship between human nature and morality then, lies in that people are adapted by nature to receive virtues. In other words, we get morals by exercising them, and so it is important to form good habits from youth- as habit will form good moral virtue in a person.

Mencius has a view in opposition to Aristotle’s. Mencius argues that human nature and morality are intertwined. He says that human nature is naturally good similarly to how water naturally moves downward. Essentially, things like humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not drilled into us from the outside or adapted; rather, we originally are born with these feelings already inside of us.  As Mencius explicitly says “they are within our original nature”. Consequentially, by this view if people just follow their original nature and the feelings that they are born with, then they will do good. However, it seems that Mencius isn’t too confident that this is how things actually work. He explains that the proper goodness of the mind is disturbed by everyday life; and that the natural good slowly fades.  This is similar to what deforestation does to a mountain, he says. While at first it is naturally beautiful, if it is not properly taken care of, it looses its natural beauty. Although, this does not mean that it is not naturally beautiful. Mencius mentions that with proper nourishment and care everything grows, but without it everything decays. This is the relationship between nature and morality for Mencius. Essentially they are synonymous, but for morality to flourish in a person it must be taken care of and preserved. Otherwise it will decay.

Rousseau believes that human nature is naturally “more good” than it is bad. While he acknowledges that people have both vices and virtues, he says that people have more virtues than vices. Further, Rousseau advises against coming to the same conclusions as Hobbes who says that men are naturally wicked. Rousseau believes that pity is a naturally occurring feeling and so this feeling is a part of human nature. He argues that pity is what moderates a person’s selfishness and thus contributes to the overall well being of human kind. It seems that for Rousseau, it is pity which beings about morality in humans. It seems that in this view, morality is inherently a part of human nature because if humans naturally feel pity, then they will act out of this feeling. This feeling then, is what causes people to act morally in instances where they are compelled to do so. 

Kant: Fairness, Justice, Autonomy and Respect

Kant believes we have duties that we must follow regardless of whether it creates happiness or not. This view is irrespective of consequences. Kant's thinking seems to lead one towards concepts of justice, fairness, autonomy, and respect. Essentially, these are concepts, which are supposed to ensure everyone has their life, liberty and so forth. This seems appealing, because it is the opposite to saying that it's fine to exploit people or cause them suffering if it makes everyone else happy (a view that the utilitarian’s would uphold). 



Additionally, Kant advances the idea of a categorical imperative. Essentially, what Kant's Categorical Imperative says is 'act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law'. Therefore, actions are good only if they can be universalized. For example, you couldn't argue that lying become a universal law because talking is pointless if you don't do it to communicate truth, plus a rational agent is unable to logically will something that defeats their own rationality, like for example being lied to. What is essentially being advanced is the golden rule…do unto others as you would like them doing unto you.

Overall however, Kant believed that only actions that result out of one’s good will could be considered morally praiseworthy.

Recently, there was a controversy in the media regarding a jurors comment about the controversial Florida "loud music" trial where the juror says that there was no chance from the start of a murder conviction in the shooting of an unarmed teen at a gas station because several jurors were convinced Michael Dunn acted in self-defense. (more information about the case may be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/US/juror-loud-music-trial-wanted-murder-conviction/story?id=22571068). As I read further into the article, I learned that allegedly, Dunn was bothered by the loud music being played in the car that was parked next to his in a gas station and decided to ask that the people inside of the vehicle turn it down. I’d like to explore whether it was wrong for Dunn to be bothered by the loud music being played by the teenager, and nothing beyond this matter. It seems that on Kant’s view, if everyone were to go around playing his or her music too loudly, it would cause chaos in society. It seems that people would have a hard time communicating, and those that wanted peace and quiet, would not be able to attain it. This seems like a violation of someone’s autonomy, and just seems like an unfair and disrespectful action to partake in if a person does not like loud music. However, if the person playing the loud music would like this to be done to him or her, then it does not seem wrong that he engages in this behavior- as he is doing what he would like others to do to him. It seems that by Kant’s view we can say that it was not wrong for Dunn to be bothered, as someone was not doing unto him as he does unto others. Also however, it does not seem wrong that the loud music player plays his music loudly if he would like this action to be done unto him. It seems that Kant's theory runs into problems when we explore an issue like this one.

Consequentialism

According to Shafer-Landau, consequentaimlism says that an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results, and advances a five step process that is supposed to determine whether an act produces the best overall results. The five step process is the following: 

"1. First, identify what is intrinsically good-valuable in and of itself, and worth having for its own sake.
  2. Identify what is intrinsically bad.
  3. Determine all of your options. Which actions are open to you at the moment?
  4. For, each option, determine the value of it's results. How much of what is intrinsically good will each action bring about? How much of what is intrinsically bad?
 5. Finally, pick the action that yields the best balance- the highest ratio of good to bad results." (119).

Accordingly, I want to examine which action is morally required in the following situation:

In the article Bullying May Have Lasting Health Effects on Kids, author Amy Norton discusses new findings, which indicate that bullying has been shown to have detrimental effects on young children that stay with them as they age. These effects sometimes may even cause "low mental well-being" later on in life. 

These findings led me to wonder…

Is it morally required for schools to have anti-bullying policies?

It seems that if we want to determine whether this action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results, then we must determine this by way of the five step process.

1.  What is intrinsically good-valuable in and of itself? At this point, it is my opinion that good mental well-being (i.e., happiness) is intrinsically good.
2. What is intrinsically bad? If it is the case that happiness is intrinsically good, then it would seem to me that sadness (i.e., low mental well-being) is intrinsically bad- as it is the opposite of happiness.
3. The options in this case would be to either:
                       a. require for schools to have anti-bullying policies
or
                       b. not require for schools to have anti-bullying policies.
4. For, each option, determine the value of it's results. How much of what is intrinsically good will each action bring about? How much of what is intrinsically bad?
-It seems that option A would not necessarily bring about happiness, but it could bring about some. It could also bring about sadness as the bullies would be prevented/punished for doing something that they enjoy doing.
In regards, to option B, it seems that taking this route would certainly bring about a lot of sadness as bullying would still be acceptable and so we run a higher risk of having more sadness or low mental well being produced. However, this might bring about some happiness in bullies who enjoy engaging in such behavior and would have the opportunity to continue to bully.
5. It seems that the action that would yield the best balance of good to bad results would be option A because while the bullies would be sad for a while, this sadness would only be temporary. While allowing bullying to persist has been shown to cause detrimental and on-going sadness in the victims of bullying seemingly bringing about a lot more of what is intrinsically bad.

In this case it seems that that the consequentialist would say that is it morally required for schools to have anti-bullying policies.

Does Preference-Hedonism=Desire Satisfaction Theory?

Derek Parfait, the author of What Makes Someone's Life Go Best, mentions in his writing that what pains and pleasures have in common are their relations to our desires. More specifically he says that pains are unwanted experiences, and that pains are worse or greater the more they are unwanted. Similarly, all pleasures are when experience wanted, and they are better or greater the more they are wanted. Specifically, these are the claims Parfait associates with Preference-Hedonism. 

On the other hand, he also describes another theory. The Desire Satisfaction Theory. More specifically, he discusses a version of the desire satisfaction theory called the Success Theory. He argues that the success theory and preference-hedonism do in fact differ, but that they differ in only one way. The way they differ according to Parfit is that the success theory appeals to all of our preferences about our own lives while preference-hedonism appeals only to preferences about those present features of our lives that are introspectively discernible.
The claims made by Parfait made be want to take a closer look at the two theories. Let's consider these theories in the context of something that was recently in the U.S. headlines. In early February 2014, there was an outrage over the move on the part of a Danish zoo to kill a healthy giraffe, and feed it to the lions (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/). The director of the Danish zoo explained that the zoo would euthanize the male giraffe named Marius because of a duty to avoid inbreeding. The giraffe's impending death had sparked outrage online, with more than 27,000 people signing a "Save Marius" petition, appealing for a last-minute change of heart. The petition was denied, and Marius was executed. 

This led me to wonder if this event makes the 27,000 people who signed the petition and who really wanted for Marius to not be executed worse off?

Through the lens of a Preference-Hedonist: It seems that on this view, depending on the extent to which the person did not want Marius killed, this pain or unwanted experience makes that person worse off to the extent that the experience of Marius being executed was unwanted. However, if this person heard about the petition, signed it, and then never followed up, and never found out Marius was in fact executed, then they are not worse off from the event having had occurred. 

Through the lens of a Success Theorist: The lives of all 27,000 people are worse off as a cause of the event of Marius being executed having occurred. This would be true whether or not they know Marius was killed because of their desire of Marius being saved, not having been fulfilled. 

Conclusion: While at a glance, the success theory and preference-hedonsim seem to be the same exact thing, it seems that when they are put into context, these two theories turn out to be completely different and the distinction becomes all the more evident as we can see in the above mentioned examples!

On Hedonism, The Desire Satisfaction Theory and The Objective List Theory

What is good? What does it mean to live a good life or to be well off? Does one single standard exist for everyone? I am not sure that I have a satisfactory answer to either one of these questions at the current moment. However, this does not worry me as I am excited to begin to think about the possibilities of whether there is or is not a good life, and if there is, what it means to live the good life as opposed to a bad one.

Whether you believe that you are living the good life already, or would like to know how to go about living the good life, or maybe you are indifferent- whatever the case may be, feel free to join me as I dive into a journey of contemplation. Maybe we'll find the answers to our questions. Maybe we won't. However, what I do know is that if we attempt to reflect more closely on what sort of life is worth living, then we will learn more, and therefore know more. We will surely learn more about the possibilities of what a good life could entail. To me, this only means being closer to figuring out what we ought to do to live the life that would ultimately make us best off. The idea of achieving this seems to make the contemplation and journey as a whole worthwhile. It may be the case that you find that you were already living the good life. If so, this journey could result in validation. 

Whatever the case may be, this blog will serve as a venue for growth. Also, it will serve as a venue for me to discuss my thoughts about the texts I will be reading in looking to learn more about the essential ideas of moral philosophy.

The first view I am going to talk about is Hedonism.

Do you believe that a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and is free of pain? If so, consider yourself a hedonist from this point forward.

A little more about your view:

In essence, hedonists believe that happiness is the only thing in life that is valuable all by itself. Everything else is valuable only to the extent that is makes us happy.

Furthermore, they believe that happiness or in other words attitudinal and not physical enjoyment is the key to the good life.

Do you still agree?

Pros:

-Not a cookie cutter approach as there are various recipes for the good life.

-Hedonism is more of a middle path approach.

-Explanation? “Because it makes me happy!”

Cons:

-Can it be proved that happiness is truly the be-all and end-all of a good life?

-The Paradox of Hedonism

-Argument from Evil Pleasures

-Two Worlds Argument

-Argument from False Happiness

-Argument from Autonomy

-Trajectory Argument

-Argument from Multiple Harms

As I look at the lists above, I realize that the list of cons is larger than the list of pros. This is because there have been many who have found it difficult to accept the assumptions that hedonists make about the good life.

However, not all of the arguments against Hedonism are good one’s and even the one’s that are still don’t completely disprove Hedonism. This allows for the view to live on, and have its many fans. Still, it seems that because Hedonists are not able to prove that happiness is the only thing in the world that is intrinsically valuable, it is difficult to completely buy into the view that happiness is the only key to the good life.

In contrast, the desire satisfaction theory is an alternate view which says that your life goes well for you to the extent that you get what you want. So, something is good for you if it satisfies your desires, only if it satisfies your desires and because it satisfies your desires.


Your life goes badly just when your desires are frustrated.

Nothing can make your life better unless it gets you what you want.

On this view, because people desire different things, there can be a wide variety of good lives, and in addition people have a huge amount of freedom to choose their own vision of a good life. The only limitation is that the good life must consist of satisfied desires. What the desires are for however, is completely up to the person.

While the desire theory and Hedonism both have their upsides, there are also some issues that they do not stand up well to. I mentioned above some of the arguments against Hedonism, and next you will find some of what I think are the most challenging arguments for desire satisfaction theories:

-The Success Theory (it only matters that desires about one's own life be fulfilled for that person to be better off or more well off)
-Ignorance of Desire Satisfaction
-The Paradox of Self-Harm and Self- Sacrifice
-The fallibility of Our Deepest Desires

While the above mentioned are not the only arguments against the desire satisfaction theory, they are the one's that most cause the theory to look suspect. And because of this, getting what we want simply does not seem to be an essential part of the good life. This leaves us with one more theory to examine, for now at least…..


The Objective List Theory: On this view certain things are good or bad for people, whether or not these people would want to have the good things, or to avoid the bad things.

While the two theories mentioned above seem to give an account of self-interest and appeal to what a person does and would prefer, given full knowledge of the purely non-evaluative facts about the alternatives…The Objective List Theory seems to appeal directly to facts about value.

It is hard to say which theories we should accept but it might be easier to better explore them if we apply them to a recent story in the news:

In the article Super Bowl Tickets Are a Bargain at More Than $2,000 (http://nyti.ms/MLii6h) Ken Belson discusses the recent phenomenon associated with one of America's favorite sporting event, the Super Bowl. This phenomenon became all the more apparent especially when there was a decline in asking prices for tickets to the game. Belson highlights that the average asking price for a ticket was $2,645.12 on February 1, 2014, which is 34 percent less than on Jan. 19. This led me to wonder whether the person who bought their ticket on January 19, 2014 (I'll call him Fred), provided he never found out that there was a decline in the price of tickets, would be worse off than a person who bought their ticket on Febuary 1, 2014 (I'll call her Mary)? For our purposes we will say that Mary was also not aware that there was a change of price either. Ignoring any other circumstances, if both Fred and Mary were both equally satisfied with their purchases of essentially the same ticket when they bought them, then wouldn't this mean that both of their lives are equally well off? It seems that we could consider this through three different perspectives: 

Through a hedonist lens: On this view, it seems that what Mary and Fred are equally well off seeing as their purchases brought them happiness and did not cause them any harm that they are aware of. While Fred might have enjoyed the tickets more if he had waited 11 days to purchase it, he does not know this, and provided he is and continues to be ignorant of this, then the price change will not affect his level of happiness. The same logic would apply in Mary's case. The tickets might have brought Mary more enjoyment if she had know she got them for a great bargain, but being that she is ignorant to the recent phenomenon associated with Super Bowl ticket prices, she is still reaping as much enjoyment from the tickets as is Fred, and therefore they seem to be equally well off. 

Through a desire satisfaction theorist lens: On this view, both Mary and Fred would be equally well off if their desires where satisfied. If they got the tickets they wanted and were able to attend the big game, then it seems that their desires were satisfied. If it is the case that either Fred or Mary, or both of them wanted tickets at a different price but were not able to get them at the price they desired to have them, then it seems that their desires were not satisfied, and therefore they are not as well off as they could be. On the desire satisfaction theory's view, it seems that the aforementioned is true whether they are ignorant to it or not. 

Through an objective list theorist lens: On this view it depends on what would be considered as bad or good for someone. Something is undesired because it is bad for them, and things are desired because they are good for them. If Mary and Fred desired the ticket to the big game it is because they figured these tickets, and thus attending the Super Bowl would be good for them. Therefore, it seems that regardless of the price change, if Mary and Fred made a conscious decision to buy the tickets to the game at whatever price they decided to purchase them, it is because they believed these tickets to be good for them. It being the case that they both got the tickets they wanted thinking the purchasing of these tickets would be good for them, it seems that they are both equally well off if they both got what they wanted.