Blog #4

I believe that the object list theory is the most defensible. Each of the objections, presented in class, I would like to try to refute.
As the objection to "just a grab bag of stuff" - a rejoinder from Aristotle was added -"we have to consider who we're dealing with - social, rational beings." To add to that rejoinder, it is not just a grab bag of random things - if we expand from Aristotle each applies to a social, rational  being and each aspect relates to each other. Desire to satisfy would relate to knowledge, by the means that we attempt to satisfy our achievements through which we use knowledge and in that we find pleasure. When we achieve something, whether it is an art project or a paper, there is some beauty in what we created - as for the people creating them there is the existence of relationships that in turn create beauty, such as children or a family, and they result in feeling pleasure and pleasure results in a happy mental state. As for freedom, we learn by knowledge about its existence and thus we are free to achieve what we'd like to and find beauty in what we deem fit and all of this results in a good mental state.
 The objection to this theory of being too paternalistic. Paternalistic is defined as benevolent, which is well meaning/kind, but sometimes intrusive.  Looking directly at the definition I find a problem with there being something as "too well-meaning". So, I feel that it is the assumption that those who object to this view find it too intrusive. How can one not be intrusive if trying to figure out what is inherently good. To solve this question, we have to study humans and their deeper thoughts and wants, until there comes to be a general consensus. The list that is compiled by this theory appears as common sense or goals that everyone, in some way, strives for.