Motivational Tranquility: a Theory of Value and Welfare
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Velichkov 1 Motivational Tranquility: A Theory of Value and Welfare Alexander R. Velichkov (student number: 10525475) MA Philosophy Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Beate Roessler Second Reader: Dr. Thomas Nys 17 August, 2018 Velichkov 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Chapter 1: Valuing 7 1.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic values 7 1.2 Values as preferences 8 1.3 Valued and valuable objects 10 1.4 The mind dependency of values 12 Chapter 2: The TTT and TTTV 15 2.1 The Tranquility and Turmoil Theory (TTT) 15 2.2 The meaning of motivational tranquility 18 2.3 How tranquility determines choice 21 2.4 Tranquilitism and hedonism 22 2.5 The Tranquility and Turmoil Theory of Value (TTTV) 25 Chapter 3: The TTTW 28 3.1 Welfare as quality of subjective experience 28 3.2 The Tranquility and Turmoil Theory of Welfare (TTTW) 30 3.2 Against desire satisfactionism 32 3.3 Welfare and the good life 34 Chapter 4: Objections 36 4.1 The static life 36 4.2 False pleasures 38 4.3 Worthless and offensive pleasures 40 4.4 The experience machine 41 4.5 Artificial tranquility 43 Velichkov 3 Conclusion 45 Appendix A: The Paradox of Hedonism 46 References 47 Velichkov 4 Motivational Tranquility: A Theory of Value and Welfare Introduction When a person looks back at the good moments in her life, what would she see? Perhaps she would recall moments of calm appreciation, such as when she marveled at the world from a mountaintop or when she saw her newborn baby for the first time. Or she would think of all the moments when she was performing at her best, such as when she scored the winning goal in that football match during her years in college. Maybe among her memories would pop up all the times when she celebrated her birthday with her family and friends, or when she had her first kiss, or when she fulfilled her dream of visiting the Carnival in Rio de Janeiro. These perfect moments are different in many ways; they include physical exertion and serenity, and encompass a wide range of emotions, such as love, meaningfulness, achievement, awe, and inspiration. Yet, despite their differences, the good moments in one’s life somehow seem to share something that makes them good. But what could this feature (or features) be? Philosophy has seen various attempts at answering this question, with two of the most well- known ethical theories about the good life from a subjective point of view being desire satisfactionism and hedonism. The former claims that a life is good to the extent that one’s desires are satisfied (Carson, 2000; Heathwood, 2017), while the latter claims that a life is good to the extent that it contains a positive balance of pleasure over pain (Bentham, 1789; Feldman, 2004; Mill, 1863/2001; Sidgwick, 1907/1982). Neither theory is decisive. Both contain truth, but both have their problems, too. In this thesis, I will try to further the study of the good life by departing from the metrics of desire satisfaction and pleasure. I will ask the question “How can the quality of subjective experience be measured?” and will propose that, for a given subject, the goodness of a moment is inversely proportional to the subject’s need to escape it. Thus, the quality of a conscious experience can be graded on what I shall call the tranquility scale: the more one feels a need to escape the present moment, the more one is in motivational turmoil; the more one is content with it, the more one is in motivational tranquility. This scale allows to group together all the various phenomenological feelings of human life based on whether they increase or decrease one’s need to change the present moment. Having a metric of good experience can also be applied on a topic that is related to, yet distinct from welfare: the study of values. Value ethics can be approached in different ways. One is to ask “Which objects have value?” Besides being theories of welfare, desire satisfactionism and hedonism can be used to answer this question, too. While hedonism is a monist theory, arguing that there is only one thing of value – pleasure – desire satisfactionism argues that there are many things of value, but they are such in virtue of their ability to satisfy one’s desires. Besides Velichkov 5 desire satisfactionism, there are also other pluralist theories of value that try to list various objective or subjective values, such as knowledge, justice, or human flourishing (Kraut, 2009; Parfit, 1984; Ross, 1930). A different question one could ask has to do with the ontological status of values: “Can judgments about value be true, or are they simple expressions of emotion?” This has sparked the cognitivist/non-cognitivist debate in philosophy. Cognitivists argue that the claim “A is good” can be a true fact (Moore, 1903, Shafer-Landau, 2003; Smith, 1991), while non- cognitivists deny it, for example by trying to show that this statement is just an expression of emotion or attitude (Ayer, 1952; Blackburn, 1993; Harman, 1977), or that such a statement can never be true (Mackie, 1977). I will apply the tranquility scale to explicate the nature of values by asking a somewhat different question: “What does it mean for a subject to value an object?” This line of enquiry is not unconnected to the previous two ones, but its focus is on the subjective experience of valuing, rather than on the objects of value or on statements about value. Using the tranquility scale and a couple of useful distinctions, I will show what happens in mental life when a subject values an object. I will argue that the currency of one’s set of values is tranquility. In sum, the products of this thesis are: 1) a conceptual tool, the tranquility scale, which I will use for 2) an inquiry into the nature of valuing, and 3) an inquiry into the nature of welfare. I will thus be treating welfare and value as separate topics, but will also try to show how they relate to each other. In chapter 1, I will prepare the ground by outlining a framework for discussing the values. Here I will argue that valuing an object necessarily expresses a commitment to choose this object. Next, in chapter 2, I will introduce the tranquility scale through the Tranquility and Turmoil Theory (TTT) and will show how it relates to hedonism. I will then apply the TTT on the question of values by constructing the Tranquility and Turmoil Theory of Value (TTTV), which describes what happens in mental life when preferring an object. If the idea of an object brings with it more tranquil feelings than its absence, then this object is preferable, and can therefore qualify for a valued object. In chapter 3, I go into the other area in which the TTT can be of explanatory value, namely the ethics of welfare. Here I develop the Tranquility and Turmoil Theory of Welfare (TTTW), which states that a good conscious experience is one of tranquility, i.e. one that the subject does not want to escape. Because the TTT allows to grade conscious experiences in detail, as it looks at them moment per moment, I will show how the TTT has an advantage over desire satisfactionist theories of welfare. Velichkov 6 In chapter 4, I test the TTT, TTTV, and TTTW with a few well-known thought experiments from the literature on mental state theories of value and welfare. This has a triple purpose: first, to check the plausibility of the theories proposed in this thesis; second, to show how value and welfare interrelate; and third, to provide new points of view on mental state theories of value and welfare as a whole. Finally, in Appendix A, I make a suggestion for how the TTT can be used to approach the paradox of hedonism, a well-known problem in the study of pleasure. Because this is a work in philosophy, I utilize many of the methods contained in The Philosopher’s Toolkit (Baggini & Fosi, 2010). I primarily rely on conceptual analysis in order to identify necessary conditions for certain key concepts. The tranquility scale is constructed as a result of such conceptual analysis, as it recognizes that phenomenological feels contain in them varying degrees of the motivation to escape them. The conceptual analyses are based in turn on the intuitive meaning of words in ordinary language. One of my main tasks in this work is to reach more detailed accounts of value and welfare. An important method for this purpose is to resolve ambiguities through drawing conceptual distinctions. Throughout the course of this work, I distinguish between motivational tranquility and other types of tranquility; the strength of motives and their success in resulting in action; valued and valuable objects; actual and total welfare; the life of welfare and the valued life. Among other things, I use these distinctions to offer ways for reconciling subjectivist and objectivist theories of value and welfare. I cannot avoid facing the objective/subjective divide in ethics, and I do my best to be as precise as possible by doing justice to both sides. Finally, I put my findings to the test by analyzing a couple of thought experiments. I offer different interpretations of these thought experiments in order to cover as much ground as possible and leave no important possibilities unchecked. This thesis is intended as a study in metaethics, as its purpose is to clarify the meaning of ethical concepts, rather than using them to argue for what ought to be done.