Sam Harris (2010) argues that, given our neurology, we can experience well-being, and that seeking to maximize this state lets us distinguish the good from the bad. He takes our ability to compare degrees of well-being as his starting point, but I think that the analysis can be pushed further, since there is a (non-religious) reason why well-being is desirable, namely the finite life of an individual organism. It is because death is a constant possibility that things can be assessed (...) as “for” or “against” one (Champagne 2011a; Smith 2000). Such an account lets us objectively adjudicate moral questions, as Harris desires. However, by anchoring itself in the mortal body as a whole and not just the brain, such an account dampens the claim that neuroscience would have all the answers. Moreover, it pivots on an affirmation of one’s life that can seem mysterious by regular scientific standards. This chapter thus explains why the trade-off is worthwhile. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

Research Articles Adam Mossoff, Social Philosophy and Policy, FirstView Article.

Direct download(8 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

This article is a reply to Marsha Enright's essay “The Problem with Selfishness.” Enright argues that “selfishness” is not the correct designation for living according to the Objectivist ethics. This article defends Rand's use of “selfishness,” on three grounds. First, the self is central to Rand's ethics, because a person must value his self before he can value anything or anyone. Second, immoral people are selfless, because organisms that function at the perceptual level of awareness do not have a self. (...) Third, Rand has identified the exact meaning of “selfishness,” whether or not her definition accords with dictionary definitions. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Brentano, Moore, and Chisholm suggest marks of intrinsic value. Contemporary philosophers such as Christine Korsgaard have insightful discussions of intrinsic value. But how do we verify that some specific thing really is intrinsically valuable? I propose a natural way to test for intrinsic value: first, strip the candidate bare of all considerations of good consequences; and, second, see if what remains is still a good thing. I argue that we, as ordinary human beings, have (...) an astonishingly difficult time completing this test for plausible candidates. More precisely, for us as we are, it seems that the conditions for completing the first step of the test militate against the conditions for completing the second step. I conclude, then, that we have a good reason to think that we cannot verify whether or not particular things are intrinsically good. I explore some implications and I consider a number of important objections. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Until recently it has been conventional to assume that ethical egoism is "ethical" is name, alone, and that no account that considers one's own interests as the standard of moral obligation could count as seriously "ethical." In recent years, however, philosophers have shown increasing respect for more sophisticated forms of ethical egoism which attempt to define self-interest in enriched terms characterizing self-interest as human flourishing in both material and psychological dimensions. But philosophers are still skeptical that any conception of self-interest (...) could underpin ethical theory. This paper considers recent arguments by Richard Joyce, who is willing to concede enriched conceptions of self-interest, but who claims that egoism cannot support appropriate counterfactual conditionals about morality, or inferential uses of ordinary moral thinking. I argue that ethical egoism can satisfy each of Joyce's desiderata for morality, provided that it is taken to involve the very notion of enriched self-interest that Joyce is elsewhere willing to consider. In showing that egoism can count as a moral theory, I show, in effect, that Joyce's arguments for error theory about morality are really arguments for error theory about agent-neutral, non-egoistic morality. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

One of the grounds on which profit maximization has been morally condemned is the claim that businessmen are led by the logic of profit maximization to prioritize profit above all other values, including human life. Thus, while business critics claim that they object to profit maximization, what, at least some of them, in fact object to is profit prioritization. Drawing upon Ayn Rand's distinction between the intrinsic and objective theories of value, this article unpackages profit maximization and profit prioritization, arguing (...) that businessmen can maximize profit without having to prioritize profit above all other values. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark