Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T04:09:10.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Must Adaptive Preferences Be Prudentially Bad for Us?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2018

ROSA TERLAZZO*
Affiliation:
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITYrterlazzo@ksu.edu

Abstract:

In this paper, I argue for the counterintuitive conclusion that the same adaptive preference can be both prudentially good and prudentially bad for its holder: that is, it can be prudentially objectionable from one temporal perspective, but prudentially unobjectionable from another. Given the possibility of transformative experiences, there is an important sense in which even worrisome adaptive preferences can be prudentially good for us. That is, if transformative experiences lead us to develop adaptive preferences, then their objects can become prudentially better for our actual selves than the objects of their nonadaptive alternatives would now be. I also argue, however, that the same worrisome adaptive preferences might still be prospectively prudentially objectionable: that is, our pretransformation selves might be prudentially better off undergoing a nonadaptive alternative transformative experience instead. I argue that both claims hold across the range of the most broadly defended accounts of well-being in the literature.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruckner, Donald. (2009) ‘In Defensive of Adaptive Preferences’. Philosophical Studies, 142, 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, Dale. (2013) ‘Adaptation, Autonomy, and Authority’. In Räikkä, Juha and Varelius, Jukka (eds.), Adaptation and Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing and Ending Life (Heidelberg: Springer), 2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. (2012) On Settling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Elizabeth. (2009) ‘“I'll be Glad I Did It”: Reasoning and the Significance of Future Desires’. Philosophical Perspectives, 23, 177–99.Google Scholar
Hurka, Thomas. (1993) Perfectionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Shelly. (2009) ‘Wellbeing as Enjoying the Good’. Philosophical Perspectives, 23, 253–72.Google Scholar
Khader, Serene J. (2011) Adaptive Preferences and Women's Empowerment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. (1992) ‘Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism’. Political Theory, 20, 202–46.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2001) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, L. A. (2014) Transformative Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. (2003) Facts, Values, and Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, L. W. (1996) Welfare, Happiness and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Superson, Anita. (2005) ‘Deformed Desires and Informed Desire Tests’. Hypatia, 20, 109–26.Google Scholar
Terlazzo, Rosa. (2016) ‘Conceptualizing Adaptive Preferences Respectfully: An Indirectly Substantive Account’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24, 206–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlazzo, Rosa. (2017) ‘When is Non-Ideal Theory Too Ideal?’: Adaptive Preferences, Children, and Ideal Theory’. In Vallier, Kevin and Weber, Michael (eds.), Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates (New York: Oxford University Press), 233–52.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna. (2006) ‘Big Decisions: Opting, Converting, Drifting’. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 58, 157–74.Google Scholar