David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):270-295 (2013)
Many philosophers have claimed that we might do well to adopt a hybrid theory of well-being: a theory that incorporates both an objective-value constraint and a pro-attitude constraint. Hybrid theories are attractive for two main reasons. First, unlike desire theories of well-being, hybrid theories need not worry about the problem of defective desires. This is so because, unlike desire theories, hybrid theories place an objective-value constraint on well-being. Second, unlike objectivist theories of well-being, hybrid theories need not worry about being overly alienating. This is so because, unlike objectivist theories, hybrid theories place a pro-attitude constraint on well-being. However, from the point of view of objectivists, hybrid theories are not objectivist enough, and this can be seen clearly in missing-desires cases. For instance, hybrid theories entail that, if someone lacks the desire for health, then health is not a component of her well-being. This, objectivists say, is implausible. It is obvious, objectivists say, that someone’s life goes better for herself inasmuch as she is healthy, and hence that health is a component of her welfare. This paper focuses on the missing-desires objection (as leveled by objectivists) to hybrid theories of well-being. My argument is that the missing-desires objection can be answered in a way that is generally convincing and, in particular, in a way that pays a good deal of respect to objectivist intuitions about well-being. My hope, then, is that this paper will help to persuade objectivists about well-being to become hybrid theorists.
|Keywords||hybrid theories of well-being defective desires alienation missing-desires objection objective-list theory of well-being|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Derek Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
L. W. Sumner (1996). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Oxford University Press.
John Finnis (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford University Press.
Robert Merrihew Adams (1999). Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Matthew S. Bedke (2012). The Ought-Is Gap: Trouble For Hybrid Semantics. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (249):657-670.
Jon Garthoff (2010). Structuring Ends. Philosophia 38 (4):691-713.
By Daniel R. Boisvert (2008). Expressive-Assertivism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (2):169–203.
William Lauinger (2011). Dead Sea Apples and Desire-Fulfillment Welfare Theories. Utilitas 23 (03):324-343.
Toby Svoboda (2011). Hybridizing Moral Expressivism and Moral Error Theory. Journal of Value Inquiry 45 (1):37-48.
Chris Heathwood (2011). Desire-Based Theories of Reasons, Pleasure, and Welfare. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 6:79-106.
Gerard O'Brien & Jonathan Opie (2004). Vehicle, Process, and Hybrid Theories of Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):303-305.
Ilkka Pyysiäinen (2003). Dual-Process Theories and Hybrid Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):617-618.
Nick Bostrom (2007). Sleeping Beauty and Self-Location: A Hybrid Model. Synthese 157 (1):59 - 78.
Chris Heathwood (2005). The Problem of Defective Desires. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (4):487 – 504.
James Mattingly (2009). Mongrel Gravity. Erkenntnis 70 (3):379 - 395.
Dale Dorsey (2010). Three Arguments for Perfectionism. Noûs 44 (1):59-79.
Mark Schroeder (2009). Hybrid Expressivism: Virtues and Vices. Ethics 119 (2):257-309.
Added to index2012-08-07
Total downloads277 ( #8,214 of 1,907,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)74 ( #6,564 of 1,907,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?