I think there’s room for a broad alliance among people of all value systems against this possibility.Īnd it is not just an alliance of convenience. Whatever your values are, the world being eaten by gray goo, paperclip maximizers, or Hansonian ems is unlikely to satisfy them. The proponents of mysticism, art, martial glory, et cetera are on even weaker grounds than the hedonists. Moloch has been far less kind to the older and grittier values than it has even to hedonism. Or bombed by a drone operated remotely from ten thousand miles away. My heart stirs as much as anyone else’s when Achilles goes forth in his god-forged armor, shouting boasts and daring the bravest champion of the Trojans to take him on.īut if some modern Achilles tried that today, he would be shot dead with a machine gun in about three seconds. If what satisfies a certain monk is to deny himself worldly pleasures and pray to God, then the best state of the world is one in which that monk can keep on denying himself worldly pleasures and praying to God in the way most satisfying to himself.Ī person or society following preference utilitarianism will try to satisfy the wants and values of as many people as possible as completely as possible thus the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Preference utilitarianism is completely on board with the idea that people want things other than raw animal pleasure. As I wrote loooong ago in the Consequentialist FAQ:
“Human values (‘Elua’) mean hedonism and free love and namby-pamby happiness, and I’m not on board with that.” ( example)Īre you a human? If so, congratulations.