i’m delited that eden lin agreed to contribute the folloing post to my “philosopher spotlite” series. enjoy!* * *most of my work has focused onna normative ethics of well-bein’or welfare, which investigates (i) wha’ counts as a life that is goin well or badly for the individual whose life tis, (ii) wha’ determines how well or badly some1’s life is goin, and (iii) wha’ things are good or bad for individuals inna most basic way.theories of well-bein’ typically purport to identify the basic goods and bads—the kinds of things that tis ultimately in or against an individual’s interests to possess and whose presence in a life makes it go well or badly. pluralistictheories of well-bein’, on which there are either a plurality of basic goods or a plurality of basic bads, ‘ve been a recurring theme in my work. i argue that the correct theory of well-bein’ is a pluralistic theory in “pluralism bout well-bein’” (philosophical perspectives, 2014), and i propose a pticular way of cogging the distinction tween pluralistic and monistic theories in “monism and pluralism” (the routledge handbook of philosophy of well-bein’, 2016). in “the subjective list theory of well-bein’” (australasian journal of philosophy, 2016), i argue that subjectivistsabout welfare, who claim that how well things are goin for some1 is entirely a matter of how satisfied their favorable attitudes are, ‘ve good reasons to abandon the monistic theories t'they ‘ve traditionally defended and to endorse a pluralistic theory instead. there are 3 other papers in which i ponder how subjectivist theories of well-bein’ ‘d best be developed. in “asymmetrism bout desire satisfactionism and time” (oxford studies in normative ethics, vol. 7, 2017), i propose a new answer to the timing ?: at wha’ times does the satisfaction of one of yr favorable attitudes benefit you if the times at which you ‘ve the attitude do not overlap w'da times at which its. . .
news src: philosophy, et cetera
original content at: www.philosophynews.com…