I might add that I also consider the development of ethical anti-realism to be another, perhaps more insightful, achievement. But this development is, from what I understand, usually attributed to Hume.
Depending on what you mean by “pleasure” and “pain” it is possible that you merely have a simple conception of the two words which makes this identification incompatible with complexity of value. The robust form of this distinction was provided by John Stuart Mill who identified that some forms of pleasure can be more valuable than others (which is honestly quite similar to what we might find in the fun theory sequence...).
In its modern formulation, I would say that Bentham’s contribution was identifying conscious states as being the primary theater for which value can exist. I can hardly disagree, as I struggle to imagine things in this world which could possibly have value outside of conscious experience. Still, I think there are perhaps some, which is why I conceded by using the words “primary source of value” rather than “sole source of value.”
To the extent that complexity of value disagrees with what I have written above, I incline to disagree with complexity of value :).
Then I will assert that I would in fact appreciate seeing the reasons for disagreement, even as the case may be that it comes down to axiomatic intuitions.
I might add that I also consider the development of ethical anti-realism to be another, perhaps more insightful, achievement. But this development is, from what I understand, usually attributed to Hume.
Depending on what you mean by “pleasure” and “pain” it is possible that you merely have a simple conception of the two words which makes this identification incompatible with complexity of value. The robust form of this distinction was provided by John Stuart Mill who identified that some forms of pleasure can be more valuable than others (which is honestly quite similar to what we might find in the fun theory sequence...).
In its modern formulation, I would say that Bentham’s contribution was identifying conscious states as being the primary theater for which value can exist. I can hardly disagree, as I struggle to imagine things in this world which could possibly have value outside of conscious experience. Still, I think there are perhaps some, which is why I conceded by using the words “primary source of value” rather than “sole source of value.”
To the extent that complexity of value disagrees with what I have written above, I incline to disagree with complexity of value :).
(I think you and habryka in fact disagree pretty deeply here)
Then I will assert that I would in fact appreciate seeing the reasons for disagreement, even as the case may be that it comes down to axiomatic intuitions.