A New Defense of Hedonism about Well-Being

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
According to hedonism about well-being, lives can go well or poorly for us just in virtue of our ability to feel pleasure and pain. Hedonism has had many advocates historically, but has relatively few nowadays. This is mainly due to three highly influential objections to it: The Philosophy of Swine, The Experience Machine, and The Resonance Constraint. In this paper, I attempt to revive hedonism. I begin by giving a precise new definition of it. I then argue that the right motivation for it is the ‘experience requirement’ (i.e., that something can benefit or harm a being only if it affects the phenomenology of her experiences in some way). Next, I argue that hedonists should accept a felt-quality theory of pleasure, rather than an attitude-based theory. Finally, I offer new responses to the three objections. Central to my responses are (i) a distinction between experiencing a pleasure (i.e., having some pleasurable phenomenology) and being aware of that pleasure, and (ii) an emphasis on diversity in one’s pleasures.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BRAAND-3
Revision history
First archival date: 2016-01-28
Latest version: 3 (2016-03-30)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Value of Consciousness.Uriah Kriegel - 2019 - Analysis 79 (3):503-520.
The Experience Machine.Ben Bramble - 2016 - Philosophy Compass 11 (3):136-145.
Non-Repeatable Hedonism Is False.Timmerman, Travis & Pereira, Felipe

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-01-28

Total views
1,103 ( #2,537 of 49,077 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
228 ( #1,741 of 49,077 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.