A preference theory is a philosophical theory that the fulfilment of preferences is the only thing that matters in contributing to well-being. Well-being can be seen as what people ultimately want to achieve; the “ultimate good”1. In terms of preference theory, for you to reach the state of well-being then you must have your preferences satisfied. Preference theories can be split into two distinct categories, actual preference theory and ideal preference theory2. Actual preference theory deals with preferences people actually have, regardless of misinformation or irrationality, while ideal preference theory is interested in what we would “hypothetically” prefer, if we were completely informed and rational3. In this essay, I will be arguing against the account of well-being that actual preference theory posits, and attempt to prove that it is incorrect by showing that the fulfilment of preferences does not always have consequences that are conducive to well-being, and therefore that actual preference theory's account of well-being is ultimately wrong
Actual preference theory states that well-being can be produced by having your preferences satisfied. Thereby, if your preference is satisfied you are inevitably better off, because as a result of the fulfilment of your preference you experience well-being. Therefore it seems undeniable to claim that, according to preference theory, you must experience well-being if your preference is fulfilled. However, this account of well-being seems to have a serious flaw. If an agent is unaware of the fulfilment of their preference, do they still experience well-being? Logic and rationality would have to tell us no, however actual preference theory appears to disagree with this claim, and i...
... middle of paper ...
...oncept of well-being. Overall, the amalgamation of the inconsistencies and errors I have attempted to highlight with my arguments I think prove my original hypothesis, that actual preference theory does not offer the correct account of well-being, because the arguments show that the fulfilment of a preference does not always produce consequences that are conducive to well-being. Word count: 2134
References
1. Crisp, Roger, "Well-Being",The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2013 Edition),EdwardN.Zalta (ed.),URL=.
2. Kagan,
Shelly.
1998.
“The
Good”
in
Normative
Ethics.
Oxford:
Westview
Press
3. Feldman,
Fred.
2004.
“The
Quest
for
the
Good
Life”
in
Pleasure
and
the
Good
Life.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press
First and foremost, the Greatest Happiness Principle focuses on two main ideas: one’s actions and their resulting utility. An individual is considered moral correct if their actions promote universal utility. However, the principle doesn’t simply require individuals to make any choice that promotes utility. A person is considered “morally correct” when and only when their decision promotes the most pleasure and minimizes the most pain.
In this paper, I will argue that Objective List Theory is the best theory of well-being because it answers many questions brought up when discussing someone’s life, such as how someone can determine if a person’s life was good or bad overall or what aspect of their life dicates whether that person 's life was good or bad. Objective List Theory is the theory of well - being that states the only ingredients that are intrinsically valuable to one 's well-being are, accomplishment, freedom, and knowledge. Ultimately meaning, that these three characteristics are the only aspects of life that dictate if a person’s life is a good one or a bad one.
In his paper Desire and the Human Good, Richard Kraut argues that the typical defense for pluralism, Desire Satisfaction Theory, is too weak; subsequently Kraut offers his own alternative. In this paper I will explain Desire Satisfaction Theory as Kraut opposes it, defend the objections made by Kraut against Desire Satisfaction Theory, and evaluate his alternative theory.
In moral philosophy, preferentism - or desire satisfactionism - is the idea that the fulfilment of preferences is the sole basic bearer of intrinsic goodness, and the frustration of preferences is the sole basic bearer of intrinsic badness. Simply, getting what you desire most is good, not getting that is bad. The source of value is not the pleasure gained by getting what you want; rather the fulfilment of the desire as an end in itself. This view came about as an alternative to traditional hedonism, especially after Nozick's Experience Machine showed that most people would not choose not to be most efficiently pleasured through the machine, and therefore we should look to things other than pleasure as sources of value.
(65) He believes it would be impossible to figure out how equality of preference satisfaction would be practically implemented, and lastly he argues that the “contestability of comparisons” argument proceeds from the notion that there is considerable disagreement about what interests are the most important and how one will value the importance of the satisfaction of those interests (64-66).
Greene, Jack; Pursuits of Happiness; University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 1988.
Gertner, Jon. “The Futile Pursuit of Happiness”. The New York Times 7 September .2003. Print.
The principle of utility influences people to act on the wrong terms and encourages its followers to make decisions solely based on what produces the best results. Consequentialists, Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill believe that it doesn’t matter why a person does something or what motivates them to do so; but rather they think that the outcome is the most important factor in decision making. These two Utilitarian philosophers concluded that the greatest form of good in society was happiness, and that the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure should always be one’s number one priority and ultimately always one’s end goal. Encouraging members
Cashen, Matthew. "Happiness, Eudaimonia, and The Principle of Descriptive Adequacy." Metaphilosophy 43, no. 5 (October 2012): 619-635. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2013).
Bowman, James. "The Pursuit of Happiness." The American Spectator. N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
J.S. Mill’s principle of utility is explained as actions are right as they tend to gain happiness, and wrong as they tend to reduce happiness. Mill defines happiness as, “pleasure and the absence of happiness is pain.” He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that more complex pleasures are ranked higher. Mills also places people’s achievements of goals, such as a virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. When Mill states that the principle of utility is the “First Principle” of morality he is ranking the principle of utility highest because that in order to know what the boundaries of morality are, it is necessary to know how actions should be accounted. The first principle dictates the rest of the principles of morality because it illuminates what the right thing to do is, and that is to maximize happiness. Happiness is the goal of morality, and this is why Mill believes that morality must have a first principle.
Wellbeing’, ‘life satisfaction’ and ‘quality of life’ are often used interchangeably, and incorporate both objective and subjective aspects of a person’s life – both observable facts (such as household income, family structure, educational achievement, health status) and an individual’s own feelings about these things and their life in general.
Subjective expected utility (SEU) is one of the dominating theory because of the theory can explain and what it’s saying is true. The things that this theory says are based on a true story or true things that a person does in a normal day in life. It’s like when a person is driving to work and he or she is about to be late for an important meeting. That person whosever driving does not think and chooses to speed and trying to get to that meeting not knowing t...
According to Mill, the principle of Utility is that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Mill’s definition of principle of Utility consists of measuring happiness that is pleasure and absence of pain; and unhappiness that are pain and privation of pleasure When a person does a right decision, he gains happiness or pleasure from doing the right thing. When that person does a wrong one, he gains pain or privation of pleasure, which is the reverse of happiness. The principle of Utility does not measure only the individual’s happiness. It measures both quantity and quality of the resulting overall happiness of all people, including that of the person.
Kasser first shows that people who are rich are not necessarily happier than those who are not rich, provided ba...