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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment