But pleasant experiences are a kind of consumption, and a worthy life isn’t characterized by how much you’ve consumed. A worthy life is characterized by what you’ve output.
This sounds to me like confusing instrumental and terminal goals.
The things I do for others are only worthy because they are needed. Imagine baking tons of bread that no one wants to eat, so it just gets thrown in the garbage. Would that be a worthy activity?
Pleasant experiences are intrinsically worthy; that’s what the word “pleasant” means, kind of. (We can criticize them if they also have some negative side effect, of course. But that just means that their total value is a sum of some positive and some negative components.)
When we judge a person who spends 10% of their resources on pleasure and 90% on producing for others “more worthy” than a person who spends 100% of their resources on pleasure, a part of that calculation is that the production for others will result in some extra pleasure down the line (even if only in the sense of “pleasure of not starving for a while”).
If we instead had one person who spends 10% resources on pleasure and 90% on generating useless paperclips, and another person who spends 100% resources on pleasure, we would probably just call the first person stupid. If we had a group of people, where everyone produces paperclips, gives them to the next person in the circle, who takes them apart and then reassembles them into new paperclips and gives them to the next person again… we would call the entire group crazy.
a part of that calculation is that the production for others will result in some extra pleasure down the line
I don’t agree with this view. The person who does things, taken to a high degree, is Leonardo da Vinci. The person who consumes stuff, taken to a high degree, is a kind of couch potato or sea sponge that doesn’t even need much of a brain. Saying that the former is lowly “instrumental” while the latter is lofty “terminal” sounds very wrong to me.
Either Leonardo enjoys what he is doing (in that case there is terminal value for himself) or he is doing it for other people to enjoy (instrumental value) or both (both kinds of value).
In a hypothetical world where neither is true, i.e. Leonardo hates doing things and no one cares whether he does them or not, he should stop doing that.
He enjoys what he’s doing, but that’s not the most important measure. If you offered him a hypothetical harmless drug that could bring him even more enjoyment but stop him from working, he would refuse.
That’s a tautology then, “people want what they want”. If I understood Villiam right, he was making a more substantive point: that all aspects of “what we want” ultimately reduce to pleasure, because it’s intrinsically valuable and (presumably) nothing else is. Which is what I’m arguing against.
The original point was against using energy consumption as a measure of worthiness. It’s true that all worthy things tend to consume energy, but energy consumption isn’t proportional to worthiness, and some things that consume energy aren’t worth anything at all. This holds whether one adopts a purely hedonistic view of utility or not.
This sounds to me like confusing instrumental and terminal goals.
The things I do for others are only worthy because they are needed. Imagine baking tons of bread that no one wants to eat, so it just gets thrown in the garbage. Would that be a worthy activity?
Pleasant experiences are intrinsically worthy; that’s what the word “pleasant” means, kind of. (We can criticize them if they also have some negative side effect, of course. But that just means that their total value is a sum of some positive and some negative components.)
When we judge a person who spends 10% of their resources on pleasure and 90% on producing for others “more worthy” than a person who spends 100% of their resources on pleasure, a part of that calculation is that the production for others will result in some extra pleasure down the line (even if only in the sense of “pleasure of not starving for a while”).
If we instead had one person who spends 10% resources on pleasure and 90% on generating useless paperclips, and another person who spends 100% resources on pleasure, we would probably just call the first person stupid. If we had a group of people, where everyone produces paperclips, gives them to the next person in the circle, who takes them apart and then reassembles them into new paperclips and gives them to the next person again… we would call the entire group crazy.
I don’t agree with this view. The person who does things, taken to a high degree, is Leonardo da Vinci. The person who consumes stuff, taken to a high degree, is a kind of couch potato or sea sponge that doesn’t even need much of a brain. Saying that the former is lowly “instrumental” while the latter is lofty “terminal” sounds very wrong to me.
Either Leonardo enjoys what he is doing (in that case there is terminal value for himself) or he is doing it for other people to enjoy (instrumental value) or both (both kinds of value).
In a hypothetical world where neither is true, i.e. Leonardo hates doing things and no one cares whether he does them or not, he should stop doing that.
He enjoys what he’s doing, but that’s not the most important measure. If you offered him a hypothetical harmless drug that could bring him even more enjoyment but stop him from working, he would refuse.
But the refusal of wireheading is itself in service of a terminal value—because “satisfaction” is more than simple pleasure.
That’s a tautology then, “people want what they want”. If I understood Villiam right, he was making a more substantive point: that all aspects of “what we want” ultimately reduce to pleasure, because it’s intrinsically valuable and (presumably) nothing else is. Which is what I’m arguing against.
The original point was against using energy consumption as a measure of worthiness. It’s true that all worthy things tend to consume energy, but energy consumption isn’t proportional to worthiness, and some things that consume energy aren’t worth anything at all. This holds whether one adopts a purely hedonistic view of utility or not.