Wouldn’t cognitive science or neuroscience be sufficient to falsify such a theory? All we really have to do is show that “good life”, as seen from the inside, does not correspond to maximized happy-juice or dopamine-reward.
You’re going to have to explain what meta-ethical view you hold such that “prefer on reflection given full knowledge and rationality” and “should prefer” are different.
I think it would take an a priori philosophical argument, rather than empirical evidence.
Wouldn’t cognitive science or neuroscience be sufficient to falsify such a theory? All we really have to do is show that “good life”, as seen from the inside, does not correspond to maximized happy-juice or dopamine-reward.
The most that would show is what humans tend to prefer, not what they should prefer.
You’re going to have to explain what meta-ethical view you hold such that “prefer on reflection given full knowledge and rationality” and “should prefer” are different.
I don’t think neuroscience would tell you what you’d prefer on reflection given full knowledge and rationality.
Sufficiently advanced cognitive science definitely will, though.
I’m skeptical of that.