is that a person can desire something that appears negative for them. An example of this would be
someone desiring to self-harm, self-sacrifice, or commit suicide. I argue that another objection to the desire theory is the self-harm, and self-sacrifice “paradox”. The line of argument for this states that if a person self harms, or self sacrifices then it cannot possibly benefit them because they are hurting themselves and that is what they desire thus posing a serious dilemma to desire theorists.[1] I disagree. I do not see a dilemma here, if a person is feeling deep remorse that can only be relieved in their mind by self-harming then by self-harming and fulfilling their desire then they have released their negative feelings and feel happy, even though it did cost a physical injury. Also, a person who self-sacrifices believes that they are going to be rewarded in the afterlife when they sacrifice themselves, and therefore feel that they are happier after they fulfill their self desire through their actions. My argument against these being a paradox is simple. There are medications that are designed to help people who feel they must self-harm, and there is no proof of an existence of an afterlife. So I argue that both these people are being irrational, and are qualified out of the desire theorists explanation that states “If something has fulfilled our informed, self-regarding desires, and we are pleased as a result of this, then that thing is good for us.”[2] These decisions represent ill-informed decisions, and therefore do not qualify under the framework for the desire theory that has been laid out. Suicide also falls under this case, a person contemplating suicide cannot possibly be informed about how to better their life, and therefore cannot be considered to be an informed self-regarding desire.
I do tend to agree with this, however my paper contradicts it slightly in terms of value simpliciter. If a person gets pleasure from the pain they get after stabbing them-self, then yes it adds to the amount of overall pleasure because pleasure pleasure is defined on a personal level. We can verify this due to varying levels of pleasure from going to a sporting event, going to a mall, etc. Yet in my paper that allows for Animal Vivisection, one important point is that we should use animals and not test humans because of the value that humans add to the world. The mere ability to appreciate culture and music and things that animals cant appreciate to the level that we can makes us inherently valuable. Thus, pain to a point to where one kills himself or herself would be worse for the world in a value simpliter take (I assume this is what you define your value as). And even if they felt pleasure from the pain of killing themselves, they technically no longer have feelings to feel the pain! Therefore, if you want to feel pain to get pleasure (according to this theory), do so in moderation because you can no longer get pleasure from the pain you no longer have the ability to feel/create! (not suggesting harm to ones self, just stating a point on value simpliciter****)
ReplyDelete