No, It Isn’t: A Response to Law on Evil Pleasure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1Resumo
In this paper, I engage with Law's (2007) paper 'Evil Pleasure Is Good For You!' I argue that, although his criticism of hedonistic utilitarianism may hold some weight, his analysis of the goodness of pleasure is overly simplistic. I highlight some troubling results which would follow from his analysis and then outline a new account which then remedies these problems. Ultimately, I distinguish between Law's 'evil pleasures' and, what I call, 'virtuous pleasures' and show how we can accept the goodness of virtuous pleasures without being forced to say that evil pleasures are good for us.
Referências
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Chappell, Timothy. (1998). Understanding Human Goods. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U.P.
Gómez-Lobo, Alfonso. (2002). Morality and the Human Goods; An Introduction to Natural Law Ethics Georgetown University Press: Washington D.C.
Law, I. (2008) 'Evil Pleasure is Good for You!' Ethic@, vol 7, no. 1, pp. 15-23.
Linden, David J. (2011) The Compass of Pleasure: How Our Brains Make Fatty Foods, Orgasm, Exercise, Marijuana, Generosity, Vodka, Learning, and Gambling Feel So Good New York: Penguin Books.
Mill, John Stuart. (1906) Utilitarianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
This obra is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional
