Out Of Their Depth?
The most LRS could say here is that, although one may get to UB via
emotional, and debunkable, ways, this does not preclude there being a wholly
rational, Sidgwickian route. But (assuming I am rational enough for the task) if I
cannot conceive of getting there by reason alone after careful reflection, it seems
that LRS and I have a fundamental, intractable disagreement.
It is just this kind disagreement that presumably keeps LRS — and
Sidgwick — from declaring that rational agents will converge on hedonism, though
they favor that welfare theory. LRS only engage disagreement on welfare theory,
though; they neglect it when it comes to deriving UB. This is unwarranted: to shut
o ut disagreement because they consider UB as “self - evident” as a mathematical
proof ignores the plain fact that UB is prima facie different from the Pythagorean
Theorem (say), because “benevolence” is a highly emotional, and social, concept,
unlike the abst ract concepts of “angle” or “shape”— and thus, prima facie , more
susceptible to evolutionary contamination.
If LRS allow disagreement here, we will simply have word against word —
mine (and Kahane’s?) versus LRS’, just as there is on the question of the correct
welfare theory. This is hardly a recipe for resolving the dualism.
Digging to Bedrock: Welfare Theories and UB
In my digging, I have noticed that something like a welfare theory underlies my
“rational intuition.” That is, in pondering UB, I hear a siren who beckons me to the
best welfare theory, and I know I hear her, since if I did no t, UB would be “empty of
content ” for me, as LRS say— and it is not. Bringing welfare to the debate recalls
Kahane’s (2014) critique of LRS’ argument. Kahane thinks th at even if UB was
immune to debunking, it would be “idle” without a welfare theory. But I will go
farther and suggest that without a welfare theory, UB is simply unjustifiable.
I agree with Kahane that in debunking arguments, principles are not
debunked, only their justification is. My claim, then, is that without a welfare
theory, I would not have justificatory reason to accept UB — though UB itself could
Volume VI (2023)
54
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker