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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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!

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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”

10. 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

11. 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?

12. 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

13. 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

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