What is good for us, and how can we know? Dan Weijers Victoria University of Wellington 24 February 2014

The Plan Wellbeing methodology – the current state of play The problems with current objections to accounts Reliance on biased judgments Assumptions of full belief in accounts Ignoring important differences between objective and subjective vantage points Solutions provided

Wellbeing methodology – the current state of play 1 In theory, an account of wellbeing should: Agree with pervasive (usually reflected upon) intuitions Have a compelling rationale Does not make inconsistent verdicts Makes verdicts for the right reasons Is meta-ethically consistent Is consistent with existing knowledge Be functional Provide (actual/theoretical) verdicts in all/most cases E.g. Timmons, Kagan, Griffin

Wellbeing methodology – the current state of play 2 But, in practice… Agree with pervasive (usually reflected upon) intuitions Accounts vs. thought experiments Widespread judgment about thought experiment that is contrary to the verdict of the account of wellbeing + plausible normative justification for judgment = account of wellbeing is wrong

Wellbeing methodology – the current state of play 3 As a result of this way of doing things… all of the main accounts are considered wrong!

Reliance on biased judgments 1 Judgments about thought experiments can be biased Intuitive vs. deliberative cognition Intuitions and biases/heuristics Intuitive cognition and “stipulations” Introspection and reconstruction

Reliance on biased judgments 2 Biases in judgments about unrealistic scenarios E.g. the experience machine

Reliance on biased judgments 3 Problem: Some thought experiments elicit biased judgments Potential solution?: Avoid intuitive judgments Bad idea Solution: Avoid unrealistic thought experiments Use intuitive judgements about rationales more and intuitive judgements specific cases less I.e. balance these uses

Assumptions of full belief in accounts 1 Some objections rely on full belief in the account being assessed The deceived businessman Why do some hedonists prefer the non-deceived life? The lack of deception is a “freebie”

Assumptions of full belief in accounts 2 Problem: some objections uncharitably demand 100% belief in an account of wellbeing Solution: Make differences reasonably sizable E.g. the experience machine So, we should look for clear counterexamples

Objective vs. subjective 1 What is the correct vantage point from which to evaluate a life? Should we evaluate lives from the inside (as they are lived) or from the outside? The choice is often obscured E.g. experience machine & deceived businessman Rules we cannot follow As a result, the objective view is the default But would you listen to others’ opinions?

Objective vs. subjective 2 Problem: the subjective vantage point is devalued Solution: Don’t encourage subjective/objective blurring E.g. don’t ask ‘which would you choose?’, ask ‘which life would be best for a stranger?’ E.g. avoid examples in which the subjective view is required and subjectively unavailable information is provided Solution: Use intuitive judgements about principles more and intuitive judgements specific cases less E.g. Ask how deception that we never experience can harm us

A new methodology for theorising about wellbeing Agree with pervasive (usually reflected upon) intuitions about realistic, generous, and fair thought experiments No sci-fi, no marginal differences, no blurring subj./obj. distinction Have a compelling rationale Does not make inconsistent verdicts Makes verdicts for the right reasons (focus on this) Is meta-ethically consistent Is consistent with existing knowledge Be functional Provide (actual/theoretical) verdicts in all/most cases

Take home message When theorizing about wellbeing… Use real life examples Balance assessments of cases with assessments of rationales and principles