Blog 4

Of the various definitions of what is intrinsically good, I think the one theory that carries the most significance and the most defensible to me has to be the objective list theory. It doesn’t deduce happiness merely to pleasure, much like the mental state theory does. Instead there are many different facets that make up what is good. I find the same issue with the desire-satisfaction theory. I feel as though desire satisfaction may not necessarily be intrinsically good, much like the objectives presented state. I very much agree with the objections to this theory. Because the objective-list theory is somewhat of an umbrella over the other two theories, I believe that the other two simply fall short of defining what is good in life.

The objection to the objective list theory is that it is too paternalistic and tells someone what is actually good in life. I disagree with this. My rejoinder to the objection would be that the objective list theory can be adapted to different people’s opinions. For instance, some people might get a sense of achievement from small everyday tasks, and others may not. This does not make it any less intrinsically good than if someone were to achieve something great. Regardless of the magnitude of an achievement, they are still an intrinsically good part of life.

Another important topic on the objective list theory is relationships. Relationships are a necessary human experience. In my sociology class, we learned that without human interaction, a person wouldn't know how to be a functioning part of society. Relationships allow a person to grow and form stable connections with other human beings. Relationships don’t always bring the best mental states which is why they wouldn't fall under the mental state theory, but they are good in nature.