Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Must Adaptive Preferences Be Prudentially Bad for Us?

  • ROSA TERLAZZO (a1)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Bruckner, Donald. (2009) ‘In Defensive of Adaptive Preferences’. Philosophical Studies, 142, 307–24.
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.
Goodin, Robert E. (2012) On Settling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harman, Elizabeth. (2009) ‘“I'll be Glad I Did It”: Reasoning and the Significance of Future Desires’. Philosophical Perspectives, 23, 177–99.
Hurka, Thomas. (1993) Perfectionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kagan, Shelly. (2009) ‘Wellbeing as Enjoying the Good’. Philosophical Perspectives, 23, 253–72.
Khader, Serene J. (2011) Adaptive Preferences and Women's Empowerment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha C. (1992) ‘Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism’. Political Theory, 20, 202–46.
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2001) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paul, L. A. (2014) Transformative Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Railton, Peter. (2003) Facts, Values, and Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sumner, L. W. (1996) Welfare, Happiness and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Superson, Anita. (2005) ‘Deformed Desires and Informed Desire Tests’. Hypatia, 20, 109–26.
Terlazzo, Rosa. (2016) ‘Conceptualizing Adaptive Preferences Respectfully: An Indirectly Substantive Account’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24, 206–26.
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.
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna. (2006) ‘Big Decisions: Opting, Converting, Drifting’. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 58, 157–74.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of the American Philosophical Association
  • ISSN: 2053-4477
  • EISSN: 2053-4485
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed