Philosophical Studies 178 (3):867-886 (2021)

Authors
Eden Lin
Ohio State University
Abstract
According to the experience requirement on well-being, differences in subjects’ levels of welfare or well-being require differences in the phenomenology of their experiences. I explain why the two existing arguments for this requirement are not successful. Then, I introduce a more promising argument for it: that unless we accept the requirement, we cannot plausibly explain why only sentient beings are welfare subjects. I argue, however, that because the right kind of theory of well-being can plausibly account for that apparent fact about welfare subjects even if the requirement is false, this argument does not succeed. I tentatively conclude that no compelling case can be made for the requirement.
Keywords Well-being  Welfare  Prudential value  Experience requirement  Experientialism  Hedonism  Desire-satisfaction theory  Objective list theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-020-01463-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,920
External links

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

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
On What Matters: Two-Volume Set.Derek Parfit - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
The Epistemic Role of Consciousness.Declan Smithies - 2019 - New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics.L. W. Sumner - 1996 - Oxford University Press.

View all 40 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Mental Time Travel and Attention.Jonardon Ganeri - 2017 - Australasian Philosophical Review 1 (4):353-373.
A Working Test for Well-Being.Tobias A. Fuchs - 2018 - Utilitas 30 (2):129-142.
On the Comparison of Inductive Support with Deontic Requirement.T. R. Girill - 1979 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 9 (1):145-159.
Intention, Belief, and Instrumental Rationality.Michael Bratman - 2009 - In David Sobel & Steven Wall (eds.), Reasons for Action. Cambridge University Press. pp. 13--36.
In Defense of the Requirement of Total Evidence.Paul Draper - 2020 - Philosophy of Science 87 (1):179-190.
On the Comparison of Inductive Support with Deontic Requirement.T. R. Girill - 1979 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 9 (1):145-159.
Rationality and Total Evidence.Andrew McLaughlin - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (2):271-278.
Characterizing Aesthetic Experience.Haewan Lee - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 1:161-167.
The Case for Reasoned Criminal Trial Verdicts.Richard Lippke - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 22 (2):313-330.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-05-08

Total views
91 ( #115,019 of 2,439,135 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #22,840 of 2,439,135 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes