Objective List Theory of Well-Being as an Explanatory Theory.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2015v14n3p451Resumo
Generally it is argued that the Objective List Theory (OLT) cannot support an explanatory view of what well-being is because OLT cannot identify one single good-maker property that it is responsible for unifying all the element that compose well-being. Then, Objective List Theory only can be an enumerative view of well-being. In this paper, I aim hold that we may offer an explanatory view of well-being even without identify a single good-maker property that is shared by all the elements that compose well-being. I hold that the OLT is still explanatory, because it is possible to identify each good-maker property in each element that is supposed to compose the list that is responsible for defining what well-being is. In addition, I hold that in order to have a full explanation about the concept of well-being we need to keep separate two question: 1) why something is good intrinsically and; 2) How the things that are good intrinsically could benefit us. My conclusion is that we may conceive one explanatory and pluralistic list that having constitutive elements of well-being and that a good explanation of well-being should keep separating the two question listed above.
Referências
References:
ARISTÓTELES. Ética a Nicômaco. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 2009.
ADAMS, R.M. Finite and Infinite Goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
BENTHAM, J. Princípios da moral e da legislação. In: Os Pensadores. São Paulo: Abril Cultura, 1979.
BOND, E. J. ‘Good’ and ‘Good for’: A Replay to Hurka. Mind, Vol. 97, pp. 279-280, 1988.
CRISP, R. Reasons and the Good, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.
_________Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Londres: Routledge, 2006.
DONNER, W. & FURMERTON, R. John Stuart Mill. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2011.
DONNER, W. Mill’s Theory of Value. In:WEST, H. (org) The Blackwell Guide to Mill's Utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
FLETCHER, G. A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being. Utilitas, Vol.25, pp. 206-220.
FELDMAN, F. Pleasure and the Good Life, Oxford: Claredon Press, 2004.
FERKANY, M. The Objectivity of WellBeing. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93, p.472-492, 2012.
FINNS, J. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
GETER, B. Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
GRIFFIN, J. On Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford, 2008.
_________ Well-Being. Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
KANT, I. Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2009.
HURKA, T.‘Good’ and ‘Good for’. Mind, pp.71-73, 1987.
LAUINGER, W. A. The Strong-Tie Requirement and Objetive-List Theories of Well-Being. Ethical Theory and Moral Pratice, pp. 953-968.
MILL, J.S. A Liberdade/Utilitarismo. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2000.
MOORE, A. Objective Goods. In: CRISP, R. & HOOKER, B. (orgs) Well-Being and Morality. Essays in Honour of James Griffin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.
MULGAN, T. Utilitarismo. São Paulo: Editora Vozes, 2012.
NOZICK. R. Anarquia, Estado e Utopia. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2010.
PARFIT, D. Reason and Person. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984
RAWLS, J. Uma Teoria da Justiça. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008.
RICE, C. Defending the Objective List of Well-Being. Ratio, XXVI, 2013, pp.196-211.
SARCH. A. Internalism about a person’s good: don’t believe it. Philos Stud, 2011, pp. 161-184.
_________Multi-Component Theories of Well-Being and Their Struture. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93, pp. 439-471, 2012.
VALERIUS, J. Autonomy, Subject-relativity, and Subjective and
Objective Theories of Well-being in Bioethics. Theoretical Medicine 24: 363–379, 2003.
WOLF, S. Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life. In: Social Philosophy & Policy, 14 (1997), pp. 207–225.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
This obra is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional
