Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:41:12.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive Preferences Are a Red Herring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2018

DALE DORSEY
DALE DORSEY*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Current literature in moral and political philosophy is rife with discussion of adaptive preferences. This is no accident: while preferences are generally thought to play an important role in a number of normative domains (including morality, the personal good, and political justice), adaptive preferences seem exceptions to this general rule—they seem problematic in a way that preference-respecting theories of these domains cannot adequately capture. Thus, adaptive preferences are often taken to be theoretically explanatory: a reason for adjusting our theories of the relevant normative domains. However, as I shall argue here, the relentless focus on the phenomenon of preference adaptation is a mistake. While I do not take a stand on whether typical examples of adaptive preferences are or are not problematic, I argue here that if they are problematic, it cannot be because they are adaptive.

Keywords

well-beingPolitical philosophyjusticemoralityadaptive preferences
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , Winter 2017 , pp. 465 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baber, Harriet. (2007) ‘Adaptive Preference’. Social Theory and Practice, 33, 105–26.Google Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth. (2009) ‘Disability and Adaptive Preference’. Philosophical Perspectives, 23, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bruckner, Donald. (2009) ‘In Defense of Adaptive Preferences’. Philosophical Studies, 142, 307–24.Google Scholar
Colburn, Ben. (2011) ‘Autonomy and Adaptive Preferences’. Utilitas, 23, 52–71.Google Scholar
Cudd, Ann. (1994) ‘Oppression by Choice’. Journal of Social Philosophy, 25, 22–44.Google Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. (2010) ‘Preferences, Welfare, and the Status-Quo Bias’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 535–54.Google Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. (2012) The Basic Minimum: A Welfarist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. (1982) ‘Sour Grapes: Utilitarianism and the Genesis of Wants’. In Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 219–38.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry. (1971) ‘Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Jennifer. (2008) ‘Well-Being, Autonomy, and the Horizon Problem’. Utilitas, 20, 143–68.Google Scholar
Khader, Serene. (2011) Adaptive Preferences and Women's Empowerment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1999) ‘Dispositional Theories of Value’. In Lewis, Papers in Ethics and Social Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 68–94.Google Scholar
Nebel, J. M. (2015) ‘Status Quo Bias, Rationality, and Conservatism about Value’. Ethics 125, 44976.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. (1999) ‘American Women: Preferences, Feminism, and Democracy’. In Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 130–53.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. (2000) Women and Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rickard, M. (1995) ‘Sour Grapes, Rational Desires and Objective Consequentialism’. Philosophical Studies, 80, 279–303.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Sher, George. (1997) Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Matthew Noah. (2013) ‘The Importance of What They Care About’. Philosophical Studies, 165, 297–314.Google Scholar
Sumner, L. W. (1996) Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, James Stacey. (2009) Practical Autonomy and Bioethics. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Terlazzo, Rosa. (2015) ‘Adaptive Preferences: Merging Political Accounts and Well-being Accounts’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 42, 179–96.Google Scholar