A Contradiction in the Desire/Satisfaction Theory?
What if there was a person whose only and all-consuming desire was to have a bad life? According to the desire/satisfaction theory, if that person's desire was fulfilled, would that person have a good life, or a bad life?
Under the desire/satisfaction theory, a good life is one where desires are fulfilled. So it follows that to have a bad life is to lack this fulfillment/satisfaction, which means that this person's original desire to lead a bad life would specifically mean NOT fulfilling that desire, for if he did fulfill his desire to lead a bad life, it would become a good life. It almost seems like a contradiction of a desire.
As long as the desires of a person are fulfilled, he or she should be living a good life under the desire/satisfaction theory regardless of the desire. Now, although it seems that the desire of living a "bad" life is a possible contradiction to the theory, I feel that there is still some scope to defend the theory. All that we have to do is clarify how leading a bad life can still mean to be a good life to someone. So, as long as the desire is fulfilled, the person leads a good life
I agree with both Matthew and Sakif, but I'd like to throw in another aspect to this question if it's not to far off the beaten path: How does this person affect the world's value simpliciter overall? It makes sense that they are living a good life within their own terms but would it cause the value simpliciter to rise simply because they are satisified or lower because the bad things they desire and achieve could in return lower the pleasure of someone else's life? My opinion is that it has the chance to lower because the desire of being killed doing something like blowing up a roller coaster would lower the pleasure of others by a greater amount. I dont see how a person who lives a good life due to negative things happening in that life could contribute to a higher world value simpliciter.
From my perspective, the desire was that person's desire and he has the definition of that particular desire. His definition of the "good desire" might be different from ours. When his desire is fulfill, he has a good life in his way. We are just the bystanders defining the good life in our way for him.
As an external observer, his life might be miserable. However, from his own point of view, he gets exactly what he wants, and thus he lives "good" (I put quotation mark because the word is to demonstrate goodness under the view of desire theory)
I think this can be raised up as an objection to desire satisfaction theory: how do you account for evil desire?
This is a quite controversial topic and people easily tend to think that the agent lives a so-called good life because his desire is satisfied. We call this kind of view, “idealism”. Nevertheless, as far as I’m concerned, there are always various temporary standards for everything. By “temporary”, I mean the standard will change with time. In other words, during a specific period of time (values don’t change much), things can be measured and judged. Hence, I don’t think the general idea of bad or good life will change from person to person during a period of time. I disagree that the goodness and badness of life simply depend on people’s own view. So my opinion towards this question is that the agent lives a bad life. The reason why he feels his miserable life is good, I think, is his limitation of cognitive. In fact, I think the fact that he has limitation of cognitive is pathetic. Imagine he is the outsider of the scenario you give, do you think he will feel good if he see someone want something he hates because of that person’s limitation of cognitive? People may argue that it happens when one person thinks richness is everything to him while another person thinks only ordinary life means everything. However, I think this is just because they don’t know that good life can have different types. However, one standard for good life here is that it is not miserable.
Under the desire/satisfaction theory, a good life is one where desires are fulfilled. So it follows that to have a bad life is to lack this fulfillment/satisfaction, which means that this person's original desire to lead a bad life would specifically mean NOT fulfilling that desire, for if he did fulfill his desire to lead a bad life, it would become a good life. It almost seems like a contradiction of a desire.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the desires of a person are fulfilled, he or she should be living a good life under the desire/satisfaction theory regardless of the desire. Now, although it seems that the desire of living a "bad" life is a possible contradiction to the theory, I feel that there is still some scope to defend the theory. All that we have to do is clarify how leading a bad life can still mean to be a good life to someone. So, as long as the desire is fulfilled, the person leads a good life
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Matthew and Sakif, but I'd like to throw in another aspect to this question if it's not to far off the beaten path: How does this person affect the world's value simpliciter overall? It makes sense that they are living a good life within their own terms but would it cause the value simpliciter to rise simply because they are satisified or lower because the bad things they desire and achieve could in return lower the pleasure of someone else's life? My opinion is that it has the chance to lower because the desire of being killed doing something like blowing up a roller coaster would lower the pleasure of others by a greater amount. I dont see how a person who lives a good life due to negative things happening in that life could contribute to a higher world value simpliciter.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, the desire was that person's desire and he has the definition of that particular desire. His definition of the "good desire" might be different from ours. When his desire is fulfill, he has a good life in his way. We are just the bystanders defining the good life in our way for him.
ReplyDeleteAs an external observer, his life might be miserable. However, from his own point of view, he gets exactly what he wants, and thus he lives "good" (I put quotation mark because the word is to demonstrate goodness under the view of desire theory)
ReplyDeleteI think this can be raised up as an objection to desire satisfaction theory: how do you account for evil desire?
This is a quite controversial topic and people easily tend to think that the agent lives a so-called good life because his desire is satisfied. We call this kind of view, “idealism”. Nevertheless, as far as I’m concerned, there are always various temporary standards for everything. By “temporary”, I mean the standard will change with time. In other words, during a specific period of time (values don’t change much), things can be measured and judged. Hence, I don’t think the general idea of bad or good life will change from person to person during a period of time. I disagree that the goodness and badness of life simply depend on people’s own view. So my opinion towards this question is that the agent lives a bad life. The reason why he feels his miserable life is good, I think, is his limitation of cognitive. In fact, I think the fact that he has limitation of cognitive is pathetic. Imagine he is the outsider of the scenario you give, do you think he will feel good if he see someone want something he hates because of that person’s limitation of cognitive? People may argue that it happens when one person thinks richness is everything to him while another person thinks only ordinary life means everything. However, I think this is just because they don’t know that good life can have different types. However, one standard for good life here is that it is not miserable.
ReplyDelete