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 (1980/1979). 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 downloads269 ( #8,263 of 1,796,529 )
Recent downloads (6 months)77 ( #6,460 of 1,796,529 )
How can I increase my downloads?