No, it isn’t: a response to law on evil pleasure

Richard Playford

doi:10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1

No, it isn’t: a response to law on evil pleasure

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

In this paper, I engage with Law's (2007) paper 'Evil Pleasure Is Good For You!' I argue that, although his criticism of hedonistic utilitarianism may hold some weight, his analysis of the goodness of pleasure is overly simplistic. I highlight some troubling results which would follow from his analysis and then outline a new account which then remedies these problems. Ultimately, I distinguish between Law's 'evil pleasures' and, what I call, 'virtuous pleasures' and show how we can accept the goodness of virtuous pleasures without being forced to say that evil pleasures are good for us.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-12
Number of pages	12
Journal	Ethic@
Volume	17
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1
Publication status	Published - 5 Dec 2018
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{f5f2b2b7a803425a925379b8de22c284,

title = "No, it isn{\textquoteright}t: a response to law on evil pleasure",

abstract = "In this paper, I engage with Law's (2007) paper 'Evil Pleasure Is Good For You!' I argue that, although his criticism of hedonistic utilitarianism may hold some weight, his analysis of the goodness of pleasure is overly simplistic. I highlight some troubling results which would follow from his analysis and then outline a new account which then remedies these problems. Ultimately, I distinguish between Law's 'evil pleasures' and, what I call, 'virtuous pleasures' and show how we can accept the goodness of virtuous pleasures without being forced to say that evil pleasures are good for us. ",

author = "Richard Playford",

year = "2018",

month = dec,

day = "5",

doi = "10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

pages = "1--12",

journal = "Ethic@",

issn = "1677-2954",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No, it isn’t

T2 - a response to law on evil pleasure

AU - Playford, Richard

PY - 2018/12/5

Y1 - 2018/12/5

N2 - In this paper, I engage with Law's (2007) paper 'Evil Pleasure Is Good For You!' I argue that, although his criticism of hedonistic utilitarianism may hold some weight, his analysis of the goodness of pleasure is overly simplistic. I highlight some troubling results which would follow from his analysis and then outline a new account which then remedies these problems. Ultimately, I distinguish between Law's 'evil pleasures' and, what I call, 'virtuous pleasures' and show how we can accept the goodness of virtuous pleasures without being forced to say that evil pleasures are good for us.

AB - In this paper, I engage with Law's (2007) paper 'Evil Pleasure Is Good For You!' I argue that, although his criticism of hedonistic utilitarianism may hold some weight, his analysis of the goodness of pleasure is overly simplistic. I highlight some troubling results which would follow from his analysis and then outline a new account which then remedies these problems. Ultimately, I distinguish between Law's 'evil pleasures' and, what I call, 'virtuous pleasures' and show how we can accept the goodness of virtuous pleasures without being forced to say that evil pleasures are good for us.

U2 - 10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1

DO - 10.5007/1677-2954.2018v17n1p1

M3 - Article

SN - 1677-2954

VL - 17

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Ethic@

JF - Ethic@

IS - 1

ER -

No, it isn’t: a response to law on evil pleasure

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this