Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T06:23:06.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subjectivism without Idealization and Adaptive Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2020

Stéphane Lemaire Open the ORCID record for Stéphane Lemaire [Opens in a new window]
Stéphane Lemaire*
Affiliation:
Université de Rennes 1
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subjectivism about well-being holds that an object contributes to one's well-being to the extent that one has a pro-attitude toward this object under certain conditions. Most subjectivists have contended that these conditions should be ideal. One reason in favor of this idea is that when people adapt their pro-attitudes to situations of oppression, the levels of well-being they may attain is diminished. Nevertheless, I first argue that appealing to idealized conditions of autonomy or any other condition to erase or replace adaptive pro-attitudes is mistaken. Second, I show that the most natural version of subjectivism that does not appeal to any such idealizing condition can explain why the well-being of people having adaptive pro-attitudes should not be restricted to the fulfillment of these pro-attitudes. In sum, the existence of adaptive preferences does not militate in favor of the introduction of conditions of idealization but against it.

Type
Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 85 - 100
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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 E. 2007. Adaptive Preference, Social Theory and Practice, 33(1): 105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Richard B. 1998. A Theory of the Good and the Right, 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Bruckner, Donald W. 2009. In Defense of Adaptive Preferences, Philosophical Studies, 142(3): 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christman, John. 1991. Autonomy and Personal History, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colburn, Ben. 2011. Autonomy and Adaptive Preferences, Utilitas, 23(1): 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. 2012. Subjectivism without Desire, Philosophical Review, 121(3): 407–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. 2013a. Adaptation, Autonomy, and Authority, in Räikkä, J. and Varelius, J. (eds) Adaptation and Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing and Ending Life (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. 2013b. Desire-Satisfaction and Welfare as Temporal, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16(1): 151–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. 2017. Idealization and the Heart of Subjectivism, Noûs, 51(1): 196–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Gerald. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983. Sour Grapes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Éditions de la maison des sciences de l'homme).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David. 2020. False Consciousness for Liberals, Part I: Consent, Autonomy, and Adaptive Preferences, Philosophical Review, 129(2): 159–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Guy. 2013. A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being, Utilitas, 25(2): 206–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry. 2018. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person, in Agency and Responsibility (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
Heathwood, Chris. 2005. The Problem of Defective Desires, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83(4): 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathwood, Chris. 2006. Desire Satisfactionism and Hedonism, Philosophical Studies, 128(3): 539–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathwood, Chris. 2011. Preferentism and Self-Sacrifice, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92(1): 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 2005. “Saving Amina”: Global Justice for Women and Intercultural Dialogue, Ethics & International Affairs, 19(3): 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khader, Serena J. 2013. Gendered Adaptive Preferences, Autonomy, and End of Life Decisions, in Räikkä, J. and Varelius, J. (eds) Adaptation and Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing and Ending Life (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaire, Stéphane. 2016. A Stringent but Critical Actualist Subjectivism about Well-Being, Les Ateliers de l'éthique/The Ethics Forum, 11(2): 133–50. https://doi.org/10.7202/1041770arCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Eden. 2019. Why Subjectivists About Welfare Needn't Idealize, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100(1): 2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Mark C. 1999. The Simple Desire-Fulfillment Theory, Noûs 33(2): 247–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayan, Uma. 2002. Minds of Their Own: Choices, Autonomy, Cultural Practices, and Other Women, in Anthony, L. M. and Witt, C. (eds) A Mind of One's Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity, 2nd edn (Boulder, CO: Westview), pp. 418–32.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 2011. On What Matters, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. and Österberg, J.. 1996. Value Based on Preferences: On Two Interpretations of Preference Utilitarianism, Economics & Philosophy, 12(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 2003. Facts and Values, in Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays toward a Morality of Consequence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1984. Rights and Capabilities, in Resources, Values, and Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. 1907. The Methods of Ethics, 7th edn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Sobel, David. 2009. Subjectivism and Idealization, Ethics, 119(2): 336–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoljar, Natalie. 2014. Autonomy and Adaptive Preference Formation, in Veltman, A. and Piper, M. (eds) Autonomy, Oppression, and Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 227–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, Robert. 2006. What We Desire, What We Have Reason to Desire, Whatever We Might Desire: Mill and Sen on the Value of Opportunity, Utilitas, 18(1): 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Superson, Anita. 2005. Deformed Desires and Informed Desire Tests, Hypatia, 20(4): 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlazzo, Rosa. 2017a. Must Adaptive Preferences Be Prudentially Bad for Us?, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(4): 412–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlazzo, Rosa. 2017b. When is Non-Ideal Theory Too Ideal? Adaptive Preferences, Children, and Ideal Theory, in Vallier, K. and Weber, M. (eds) Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 233–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, Valery. 2018. Well-being as Value Fulfillment: How We Can Help Each Other to Live Well (New-York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar