The Value of Unity

Two debates over value are nearly coeval with philosophy itself. One debate is what good for its own sake (intrinsically good), the other contributes to an individual's welfare (“what would make this person's life go, him, as well possible”).1 These two debates, “the good” and good-for,” distinct, yet they have been parallel both in their leading theories main objections. Historically, hedonist, desire-satisfaction, objective list, perfectionist theories.2 Hedonist claim that valuable—either intrinsically or a person—tracks only experiential quality. challenge hedonist malicious otherwise anti-social pleasures may seem not be valuable either sense.3 Another distinguish higher lower pleasures: explain how some activities more even if others enjoyed just much.4 also fail register non-experiential facts evaluatively relevant, such person has false friends.5 Similarly, suggest best can had by entering Nozick's experience machine, which many find implausible.6 Desire-satisfaction challenged Chris Heathwood calls “defective desires.”7 For example, hedonism, people desires, see cruelty, cruel. More, again might trivial worthless count blades of grass.8 Other masochistic imprudent adaptive preferences self-destructive self-negating.9 Moreover, desires incorporate mistaken beliefs, appear vitiate satisfaction.10 Objective list lack explanatory power. As David Brink says, mere purportedly states “begins look like disorganized heap goods.”11 Ben Bradley objects sharply: view “does tell us why those things on weight them… theorizing, but refusal theorize.”12 There seems little proponents say when lists diverge; Martha Nussbaum sexual satisfaction central functioning, while G.E. Moore describes pleasure “evil itself.”13 And where elements common, “success” “love,” enumerating judgments shared making lists.14 Perfectionist attempt goods develop exercise characteristic human capacities.15 Yet development capacities (like gratuitously inflicting pain) anti-social.16 Perfectionism strains capture attractive idea good, feeling capacity developed exercised.17 Even challenging pain bad, perfectionism stronger account than disvalue.18 violate resonance constraint, it classifies “compelling attractive” engaged them.19 good-for” continued inconclusively centuries.20 Each theory well-known strengths, apparently incurable defects. I believe at impasse because we inherited too few theoretical options object level. The familiar simplistic our confident evaluative judgments, no justify includes excludes. Because these object-level inadequate, metaethical refer them (e.g., between versus subjective theory, about relationships reasons) inherit weaknesses. This article outlines new intrinsic setting out formal model generates ultimate bads.21 extensionally adequate theories, being simpler fruitful list.22 Most will devoted defining precisely showing appears features reason value. interpret ways concept structures reasoning unity. Ultimately, propose acts all wills one, meeting world together.23 help fight child abuse. commit stop committing abuse, etc. come show logics complex evaluations formalization compact cognitively ergonomic. approach overcome challenges four traditional theories: explaining badness anti-sociality, distinction pleasures, enter so on. Specific unity structure core reasoning, venture. Physical kindness themselves, believe, lead bad. physical cruelty bad greater balance good. Why so? return ancient question good,” need modesty achieve. First, ambition describe Indeed, typical less. basic value, any (non-basic) values stand valid relation.24 To illustrate, then “maximum pleasure” stands mereological relation it.25 Or again, Thomas Hurka claims knowledge “loving knowledge” intentional it.26 relations proposed.27 “X valuable” occurs often literature.28 In assertion correct, “X” to, described here. second boundary article's scope, study here moral theory. We draw conclusions right wrong, praiseworthy blameworthy, anyone should do. Third, set aside political Though disvalue certain domination) discussed, there nothing institutions scarce resources distributed. Fourth, ethical theory—a person. An character traits (the virtues vices). detail attentive callous: is, appropriately sensitive ends others. Since speak have, aim attentiveness callousness.29 actions helping someone, use virtue helpfulness. taking care caring someone that, Stephen Darwall “involves whole emotions, sensitivities, dispositions.”30 hope inform complete it. species desire-satisfaction functions desire-independent values. distinguished historical pedigree remain popular economics.31 Part attraction especially matters taste fancy, getting one wants obey classifying compelling them.32 single function: “whatever satisfies (informed, etc.) desires.” function leaves vulnerable extensional objections, concerning desires. A cannot phenomena satisfied desire depends object—particularly another desire. What from versions characterizes emerging logical one's world, others' along three distinct dimensions value: each other, ourselves. call “extrapersonal,” “interpersonal,” “intrapersonal” addition three-dimensional structure, built further definitions axioms, novel. Early on, positive negative middle implications axioms: telicism, Parfit, telic nesting, new. model, initially surprising; yet, bulk shows, fits “data” evaluations, remaining relatively simple. Throughout, purely formal. turn (Section II), III), IV). By end, yield pluralism. affirm lifestyles cultural practices confirming bullying racist domination define very specific senses “unity.” success naturally raises exact reasoning. Toward respond sketching interpretation “many-one interpretation.” explains drawing interpersonal individual rationality. At extend reworking image Plato's Symposium. interpretation, raise questions. phenomenology favor “desired explanation within Euthyphro problem.33 larger questions understood deontic concepts “reasons” “ought.”34 Instead addressing questions, conclude philosophers welcome having consider. Extrapersonal first dimension model. object, example “that eat chocolate,” go row,” Reef survive century.” (Here, world” technical term comprising state affairs dissatisfaction desire.) extrapersonal follows distinctive logic unity, quickly resembles (single-function) begin Derek Parfit's notion “telic” desire, sake.35 axiom (positive) Take sensations. “pleasing” sensation desire: sake. It Having pleasing sensations experiencing bodily Many ingrained into common animal nature. vary widely across persons. On account, tracks desires: you chocolate want chocolate.36 “basic unity.” pain? Here useful revive Bernard Williams, “negative desire”: something occur.37 aversive axioms disvalue. disunity,” gets get. Aversive have. Thus bad.38 zero point (when does get wants) get). cases, neither nor disunity formed, (it axiomatic that) present. contrast most theses pain, follow directly far.39 objects: world-oriented beyond her current possible experience. cherries blossom next spring, book stay print after death. Any integrate factually incorrect classic problem: based beliefs not? Parfit advances thesis handles means. says matters—only wanted sake.40 Call “telicism” Say woman falsely believes train take lover. Then, satisfy incorporated end.41 Consider Canaanite, say, who worship god Baal. consider Arneson's wife, (Arneson imagines) construct huge monument his virtue, she wildly overestimates.42 Some theorists move examples “informed desire” (or “ideal advisor”) filter beliefs.43 instead actual teleological nature desire.44 Desiring entails disposition attend realize prevent) do so.45 end sets telos: object. taken Canaanite wife achieve aims definite descriptions (“the Baal,” “Arneson's great virtue”) referents. So respect aims, correct result. wishing? wish whose agent act When wish, underlying keep attention directed practical keeps churning result action wished-for comes (“I sun shine”), created achieved through action. wants, whether happenstance.46 How good? Degree varies strength disposes associated end; motivates prevent modulo agent's probability attaining end.47 pursuit weak easily abandoned project pursued wide range circumstances cost ends. achievement end.48 captures attracted theories. finds compelling, obeys constraint. affirms good.49 Of course, telicism truly turns actually want, deep fact unknown us. give ourselves poetic license moment everything world,” flows unities world. Kindness bad—and why? objective, indeed analysis shows track among logic—or, like, geometry—that defines once sees it, everywhere everyday evaluations. “formal” “ordinary” concepts, core. Interpersonal objects. higher-order structures. simple form Tau- T-structure, desire-satisfaction. Lambda- Λ-structure, share acting together.50 T-structure models other; Λ-structure other. examine throughout Section III. sub-section begins logic, sub-sections test power formalism ordinary judgments. multi-leveled T-structures “telic nesting.” After this, explore depth contrasts before ending “unity” introduces formalism. Let start two-person case. P (Patient) yearns sensation—a warmth body. seen, means sensation: feel S.” Now person, (Agent), he A's P's desire-satisfaction: final feels S (because it).” sun's warmth, (in different sense) P. (interpersonal) calculate total case separate analyses needed: “on side” (Agent) side.” experiences (extrapersonal value). Leaving strengths aside, let stipulate “P S” +1, neutral 0. Then separately (interpersonal side, kindly goodness, added goodness pleasure. sensation, plus interpersonal) +2.51 now pain. case, S*” dissatisfied. above, bad: “On side,” (P S*) −1 takes disunified will.52 Here, −1, malign own, interpersonal, badness. −2. Filling space fills satisfied: P) particular compassionate satisfied, 0 +1.53 dissatisfied: (unlike spiteful −1.54 neat compactness. notice negative. That pleasure, (+1). dissatisfied, Whether (−1). feature important nesting” below. far bring mind axiological principle others: recursive (“loving loving bad,” etc.).55 While here, Unity attitudes “loving”) itself (“getting,” say). principle's reference blur mathematical stake; “feeling (+1) “not pain” (0) continue ever divergences tracked footnotes.56 partial far, emerging. cleanly conviction want. Within instance, cruelly thwart strong person—say, does, worse reach directly, without needing “launder out” cruel informed simply stipulating captured same kindness, compassion, spitefulness, using attempting systematic list. achieving better fit judgments.57 thin finding embedded thick well. Acts compassion themselves. firm explained terms merely value-laden way—in desires—the evidence thought. Sadistic torture, analysis, sadistic torture combination torturer target victim's aversions: force victim wanting have.58 combines aversions produce highly overall. Turning spectrum, involves preventing alleviating increase rest focus cases patient's patient end). analyzed modalities furthers successful aid support Facilitation encouragement interpersonally reason. Generosity beneficence provide good.59 All ordinary” succeeds frustrating Start gratuitous deception. instills belief order end-achievement. SoHo, trying home Brooklyn walking toward Bridge. stops ask route. willfully deceiving straightforwardly intentionally thwarts Again, deception side”—to loss lost city. mislead last lie (good) end. frustrate obstruct impede injure kill aiming cause (which know bad); or, deception, With belief; obstruction impediment injury killing, incapacity. ends, (“on side”) above end-achievement side”). similar holds coercion. coercion, threat satisfying least fewer only, money). coerces sake,