| Sep. 30th, 2007 @ 12:57 pm Basic. Welfare. Ethics. |
|---|
everyone in my house is sleeping but me. I'm learning to differentiate subjective from objective theories of welfare.
A pro-attitude towards the things that constitute my prudential mesurments of value might be necessary, but is it sufficient? If the answer is yes then certain risky behaviours would have to be condoned. Pedaphilia, drug use, crime, and horrible spelling, we'd have to grant that these things actually do contribute to an individual's well being, soley on the grounds that the person experiences a positive inclination towards them. If the answer is no, then my individual judgements of value, whether I believe a thing to be good for me, or to add to the value of my life, are inconsequential. In practice (if we subscribe to objective welfare theory) we would be forced to allow personal agency, liberty, and autonomy to become obsolete in practical ethics and notions of welfare. It would not matter what the individual decides is valueble, which actions a person thinks would be best for them, or make them happy because what they SHOULD, OUGHT, or MUST do has nothing to do with them at all. Here, pure paternalism would rule. I'm not comfortable with either, however there are people (apparently smarter than I), who claim that there is no third option. That the categories of subjective and objective, along with the unadulterated consequences of each, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Not quite. In my expeirience if you're attempting to discern coherence with a set of criteria that produces only two potentialities, and neither is very salient on a practical level, it is likely that it's the method, and not its notions, are incorrect. |