I understood DanielLC’s acquaintance as meaning that he prefers to maximize happiness and he believes that his only reasons for action are his preferences and (if it existed) morality, so in the absence of morality he will act solely according to his preferences, which are to maximize happiness.
And, sure, if his preferences had been for entering a monastery, or maximizing unhappiness, or moonwalking in a clown suit, then in the absence of morality he would act solely according to those preferences.
I doubt very much that any of these accounts actually describe a real person, and I would be very nervous around anyone they did describe, but none of this is senseless.
What.
I’m going to say that the first statement doesn’t really seem to make much more sense than the others.
I understood DanielLC’s acquaintance as meaning that he prefers to maximize happiness and he believes that his only reasons for action are his preferences and (if it existed) morality, so in the absence of morality he will act solely according to his preferences, which are to maximize happiness.
And, sure, if his preferences had been for entering a monastery, or maximizing unhappiness, or moonwalking in a clown suit, then in the absence of morality he would act solely according to those preferences.
I doubt very much that any of these accounts actually describe a real person, and I would be very nervous around anyone they did describe, but none of this is senseless.
I’d start that I might as well maximize my happiness, and then figure that it would make more sense to maximize happiness in general.