A Paradox for Some Views That Hold That Appreciating the Good Is Especially Good
One more worry for such views
Arguments here were inspired by Bradley (2009). The views I’m criticizing here have been praised by many, including the legendary Shelly Kagan. A very plausible side constraint on appreciation-based views is the following.
Can’t Appreciate Falsehoods: One can only derive objective list value from the appreciation of some source if they correctly identify facts about that source.
This seems like a plausible principle. After all, it’s hard to appreciate something if you’re wrong about what it is. If I inform someone that I appreciate them, but I’m wrong about who they are, I’m not really appreciating them.
However, suppose that my well-being is currently -5. I derive pleasure from thinking that the following is true: I lived a bad life, but I was willing to do so, and actually acted on it, to make the world a better place. By Can’t Appreciate Falsehoods, this only boosts my well-being I’m right that my life is bad and it benefited others.
Let’s say that the boost to my well-being would be 6 if I actually did life a bad life to help others. Well, then that would mean that my well-being was positive, which would mean that I no longer got the boost, which would mean that my well-being would be back to -1, which means I get the boost, thus resulting in a paradox.
The best option seems to be rejecting Can’t Appreciate Falsehoods. This seems like a cost of the view — though it’s certainly not unassailable; it’s just one small consideration favoring hedonism.
3 Responses. (Hedonists HATE number 3)
1. Presumably if anyone actually thought something like this, they would think "I have lived a bad life *so far*" which would be a true statement.
2. This is an incredibly narrow case of self-referentialism as applied to moral truths. Just excluding intangible moral truths like "I have lived a good life" from consideration (at least if what the person means is their actual numeric value.
3. There is no actual paradox. Let's zoom out. Bob does things. He gets to negative 5 utility total. Then he thinks "Wow, I have had negative 5 utility, but I have helped others etc etc" and that gives him 0.75 utility per second while he thinks about it. After 8 seconds he's at 0 utility, and the statement is now false.
But that doesn't retroactively invalidate the utility he's already recieved. So he would just get to 1 utility.
Your error is assuming the instant gain of utility, which is impossible.
4.