However, the idea is that all those things might not provide hedonic benefits—knowledge could be depressing, love could be taxing, etc.--and yet the objective list theorist would still say they add value to a life.
I would say that, even under a purely hedonistic view, it is always the case that knowledge, love etc. add value to life. They can add positive or negative value, depending on the specific snenario, but this uncertainty applies to any moral theory.
It appears to me that objective list theory values all and only hedonic states. However, while hedonist theories strive for improving these conscious states via focussing on heuristics more closely related to such states (e.g. life satisfaction), non-hedonist theories give more weight to other heuristics (e.g. objective list theory relies significantly on what is on the list as heuristics).
So I guess hedonism and objective list theory are different with respect to their methodology to increase value, but not on what they fundamentally value. Confusion might be generated when one says a given heuristic is intrinsically valuable:
It is not so in the sense that it is not perfectly correlated with value.
It is so in the sense that for practical purposes it may be the heuristic more correlated with value we know of.
Hi Vasco. I think you’re using “hedonism” and “objective list theory” in different ways than I’m using them. I understand hedonism as the view that all and only positive experiences are good for you and all and only negative experiences are bad for you, independently of their sources. I understand objective list theory as the view that pleasures and pains are on the list of things that are good and bad for you, respectively, but there are lots of other things that are on those lists too—where those other things are good or bad for you independently of whether we enjoy them or dislike them.
I understand hedonism as the view that all and only positive experiences are good for you and all and only negative experiences are bad for you, independently of their sources.
My interpretation is similar, but without the part “independently of their sources”. I think it is not logically consistent to say that something is good or bad “independently of their sources”, because all the sources influence conscious states. However, I believe one can say “without focussing primarily on the sources”, which is what I meant to refer to with my heuristics discussion above.
Thanks for the reply!
I would say that, even under a purely hedonistic view, it is always the case that knowledge, love etc. add value to life. They can add positive or negative value, depending on the specific snenario, but this uncertainty applies to any moral theory.
It appears to me that objective list theory values all and only hedonic states. However, while hedonist theories strive for improving these conscious states via focussing on heuristics more closely related to such states (e.g. life satisfaction), non-hedonist theories give more weight to other heuristics (e.g. objective list theory relies significantly on what is on the list as heuristics).
So I guess hedonism and objective list theory are different with respect to their methodology to increase value, but not on what they fundamentally value. Confusion might be generated when one says a given heuristic is intrinsically valuable:
It is not so in the sense that it is not perfectly correlated with value.
It is so in the sense that for practical purposes it may be the heuristic more correlated with value we know of.
Hi Vasco. I think you’re using “hedonism” and “objective list theory” in different ways than I’m using them. I understand hedonism as the view that all and only positive experiences are good for you and all and only negative experiences are bad for you, independently of their sources. I understand objective list theory as the view that pleasures and pains are on the list of things that are good and bad for you, respectively, but there are lots of other things that are on those lists too—where those other things are good or bad for you independently of whether we enjoy them or dislike them.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for clarifying.
My interpretation is similar, but without the part “independently of their sources”. I think it is not logically consistent to say that something is good or bad “independently of their sources”, because all the sources influence conscious states. However, I believe one can say “without focussing primarily on the sources”, which is what I meant to refer to with my heuristics discussion above.