Abstract
N. M. L. Nathan's argument that IDP utilitarianism, if universally adopted, is inconsistent, does not succeed. The argument requires that if an IDP utilitarian has only self-regarding desires, then none of these desires can be informed. This rests on a partial misuse of the expression ‘satisfaction of desire’. For an individual attempting to realize his self-regarding desires, the satisfaction of the ‘satisfaction of a desire’ is unmeaning. The naming of an object of the desire is an intrinsic part of the phrase ‘satisfaction of desire’. Further, contrary to Nathan's claim, this suggestion does not trivialize IDP utilitarianism.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gordon, D. Projectivist utilitarianism and the satisfaction of desire. Erkenntnis 29, 437–443 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183073
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183073