No, It Isn’t: A Response to Law on Evil Pleasure

Richard Playford

Resumo


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. 


Palavras-chave


Ethics; Pleasure; Aristotelianism; Hedonism; Utilitarianism

Texto completo:

PDF/A (English)

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.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1

          

 

 

ethic@. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil, eISSN 1677-2954

Licença Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional