Hi students!

As promised, this is our course blog to consolidate our learning. I will be using this space frequently post-tutorial to keep you engaged and address some of the concerns you raised in class.

1. I had observed that some students are not very clear about the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value. Something is intrinsically valuable if it is valuable for its own sake. Think about it this way: if something is intrinsically valuable, we just know it to be so—there is no need for further explanation, since that very thing itself is valuable. Examples include friendship, love, etc. Something is instrumentally valuable if it is valuable for the effects it brings about. Think about it this way: if something is instrumentally valuable, we are able to explain why it is valuable by reference to another thing that we value for its own sake. Example: smoking brings pleasure, which is what we value for its own sake.

2. Students are also confused about how a single thing may belong to multiple categories. So we have four categories:

1. Intrinsically good
2. Intrinsically bad
3. Instrumentally good
4. Instrumentally bad

The possible combinations then, are:

X is both intrinsically good and instrumentally good. (e.g., knowledge, which leads to even more knowledge)
X is both intrinsically good and instrumentally bad. (e.g., friendship or love, which may lead to pain)
X is both intrinsically bad and instrumentally good. (e.g., the pain that comes from a surgery, which eventually leads to pleasure arising from relief from pain)
X is both intrinsically bad and instrumentally bad. (e.g., pain, betrayal, etc.)
X is both instrumentally good and bad in different respects. (e.g., smoking leads to both pleasure and pain)

Please note that it’s contradictory to say that something is both intrinsically good and bad—for then we are saying something is both good for its own sake and bad (i.e., not good) for its own sake.

3. I have found it helpful to discuss the objections against the three theories in terms of the premise-conclusion format. Here is how we can formulate Nozick’s objection:

Premise 1: if Hedonism is true, then most people will, upon encountering the thought-experiment, want to sign up for the machine.

Premise 2: In fact, most people who encounter the example do not want to sign up for the machine.

Conclusion: Hedonism is false.

Most of you have correctly latched on the problems with Premise 1. Students from TW4, 5 and 6 are able to point out that Premise 1 is false because it’s possible that most people refuse to sign up for the machine ultimately due to pleasure. This is a possibility raised in the lecture. I’d like to elaborate on the lecture material slightly here.

• People (wrongly) believe that there are other intrinsic goods than pleasure because this belief helps them gain more pleasure. (Scenario 1)
• People’s intuition about the experience machine is influenced by irrelevant factors, such as a preference for continuing the current state of affairs (the status quo) or the fear of the unfamiliar. (Scenario 2)

The deeper issue with the experience machine objection is epistemic: we are unsure whether people refuse to sign up because of the first scenario or the second. The first scenario is one where the refusal to sign up supports hedonism’s truth. The second scenario is one where one’s refusal to sign up has nothing to do with hedonism (i.e., does not support hedonism). In other words, we are unsure whether the reactions towards the experience machine tell us anything definitive about hedonism’s truth. Supposing hedonism is true, one could be influenced by hedonism’s truth or one could be influenced by reasons irrelevant to hedonism’s truth, especially subconsciously. Does this mean that the experience machine objection against hedonism is doomed?

I have challenged with students who stayed back to discuss this epistemic matter with me—and the challenge remains: what about the set-up of the experience machine objection is causing the epistemic problem? Can you identify it? I’ll blog about this if time permits subsequently. Lastly, realise also, that Premise 2 tends to be accepted without much questioning… What do you think? Are classrooms controlled environments?

Here’s another challenge for Premise 2.

Premise 2: In fact, most people who encounter the example do not want to sign up for the machine.

Can you see spot how Premise 2 stated like this is ambiguous? What is the ambiguity here? (hint: think about the words “sometimes” and “never”)

4. I’ll go ahead and formulate the remaining objections to help you grasp them better. I’ll also invite you to put on your philosophers thinking hat to challenge the premises as you deem fit. Have fun!

Problem of defective desires:

Premise 1: If the DST is true, then there are no defective desires.

Premise 2: There are defective desires.

Conclusion: The DST is false.

Self-Sacrifice:

Premise 1: If the DST is true, then self-sacrifice is conceptually impossible. (i.e., it’s impossible to think about self-sacrifice…)

Premise 2: Self-sacrifice is conceptually possible.

Conclusion: The DST is false.

Elitism:

Premise 1: If the OLT is true, then certain things are good for people, even if those people do not want them and even if they will not get pleasure from them.

Premise 2: A theory where, if true, certain things are good for people, even if those people do not want them and even if they will not get pleasure from them—is elitist.

Conclusion: The OLT is elitist.

Here, I’ll invite you think about the problem of elitism… Is there a deeper problem underlying the problem of elitism here? Are the DST/Hedonism exempt from this problem of elitism? What exactly, is the deeper issue beneath this worry of elitism? Go think about it!

5. I’ll also briefly discuss the problems of arbitrariness and explanatory impotence. These are the remaining two problems with the OLTs other than elitism.

The issue is that it is difficult to answer for objective list theorists what those items on their list have in common (in other words, why all those items, but not others, are on the list). At the very least, it seems that they are on the list for arbitrary reasons… This is the problem of arbitrariness.

The problem of explanatory impotence is this: OLTs don’t seem to be able to explain why the items on the list are on the list. What do they have in common? Whatever they have in common, isn’t that thing what’s intrinsically good?

I’m not saying here, of course, that these objections are totally damning to the OLTs. Are they fair to OLTs? I’ll leave you think about them!

6. Student feedback:

“I hope there will be more time for groups to share about what they’ve discussed rather than just key takeaways/questions. ”

I aim to do better here! I expect to do better on this too, given that I will not be introducing myself for further tutorials. This is the only feedback I have received for tutorial 1 and I hope to receive more in subsequent tutorials to come! Till then, see you!

Best wishes,
YT.