This is nonsensical. Do we always conform to patterns merely because they’re the patterns we always adhered to, unquestioningly? The question is being asked now.
Right now some people prefer happiness. Many of the people who prefer happiness also endorse desiring to be happy and as such they right now prefer not to self modify away from desiring happiness.
then what justifies this article?
No justification is required for preferring one’s preferences. That’s the default. If you keep asking “Why?” enough you are bound to end up at the bottom level terminal goals from which other instrumental goals may be derived. Agents don’t need to justify having terminal goals to you.
It seems to me as if you view terminal goals as universal, not mind-specific. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood?
The point, as I understand it, that some humans seem to have happiness as a terminal goal. If you truly do not share this goal, then there is nothing left to explain. Value is in the mind, not inherent in the object it is evaluating. If one person values a thing for its own sake but another does not, this is a fact about their minds, not a disagreement about the properties of the thing.
Right now some people prefer happiness. Many of the people who prefer happiness also endorse desiring to be happy and as such they right now prefer not to self modify away from desiring happiness.
No justification is required for preferring one’s preferences. That’s the default. If you keep asking “Why?” enough you are bound to end up at the bottom level terminal goals from which other instrumental goals may be derived. Agents don’t need to justify having terminal goals to you.
This is handwaving. That is; you use a description to fulfill the role of an explanation.
This is also a description, not an explanation.
… I cannot help but find this to be a silly assertion. “That’s the default”? That’s just… not true.
Absolutely. And those terminal goals are those which are intrinsic in nature.
If you are claiming that happiness is an intrinsic good—please, explain why. Because I for one just don’t see it.
It seems to me as if you view terminal goals as universal, not mind-specific. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood?
The point, as I understand it, that some humans seem to have happiness as a terminal goal. If you truly do not share this goal, then there is nothing left to explain. Value is in the mind, not inherent in the object it is evaluating. If one person values a thing for its own sake but another does not, this is a fact about their minds, not a disagreement about the properties of the thing.
Was this helpful?