ESSAY ONE

TOPIC #1
Referencing: Derek Parfits Reasons and Persons

Nathan McIntire
P.S. ID: 374 8878

P.S. ID: 374 8878

1. Derek Parfit contrasts preference hedonism with a desire-fulfillment theory which he calls
Success Theory. Explain each of these views about what makes a life go well; explain why
each view has some counter-intuitive results; then argue either a) that one of the two is superior
or b) there is some third, related view that, nevertheless avoids the difficulties associated with
these two views. (Do not use an Objective List theory.)

P.S. ID: 374 8878

What makes someones life go best? Derek Parfit attempts to answer this question in his
essay on theories of self-interest as found in his 1984 publication, Reasons and Persons. Though
Parfit discusses Preference Hedonism, Desire-Fulfillment Theory (under the guise of Success
Theory), and Objective List Theory, the latter will not be a consideration in this paper. Parfit
opens briefly with distinguishing Preference Hedonism from Success Theory in that Preference
Hedonism is concerned with what would make ones life the happiest whereas Success Theory is
more so concerned with what would most wholly fulfill ones desires about their own life,
whether conscious or not. Through deliberation, Parfit arrives at the conclusion that bothhave
their weaknesses and shortcomings and that neither is the oft-sought single answer to the
question of What makes someones life go best? Instead, he proposes that a combination of
the Preference Hedonism and Objective List Theories as a possible alternative to a good life,
meanwhile dismissing Success Theory. In choosing between Preference Hedonism and Success
Theory, and not seeing any third stance as significantly superior, I will continue forward in
support of Preference Hedonism, despite the points presented in Reasons and Persons.
I will open with Parfits explanation of Success Theory, a derivative of the overreaching
umbrella of Desire-Fulfillment Theories, and include why he dismisses it as well as why I chose
it as the inferior of the two. Parfit chooses to discuss his own form of Desire-Fulfillment, which
he calls Success Theory, instead of the Unrestricted Theory, as the Unrestricted Theory is easily
nullified through its impracticality. He proves this point through an example where one meets a
fatally ill stranger, wishes hed be cured, then parts ways. At some point in time after their
parting, the stranger is cured. According to the Unrestricted Theory, this is beneficial and good
to the life of the well-wisher. Its apparent that this has no bearing on his life and does not, in

P.S. ID: 374 8878

any way, influence his life. Success Theory, at first, is a more plausible candidate due to it
concerning only, and all of, the desires of our own lives. It takes on a more literal interpretation
of what makes ones life go best and only what makes ones life go best, excluding what Parfit
calls Cambridge Changes, or changes to ones world entirely irrelevant to the individual.
Though this may sound quite reasonable, he does present a convincing example which solidifies
the theorys impracticality. On page 495, Parfit continues with his hypothetical exile and
children example (from the previous page) in an effort to explain how Success Theory can
quickly spiral out of reasonable bounds. In his argument, he assumes he has been cast into exile
without any human contact. While raising his children, now-exiled Parfit wished for nothing
more than to be a successful parent. Assume his childrens lives all go miserably due to mistakes
he had made years ago. Though hell never know of their fates or his misguidance, their
individual failures make his life go worse, even if he had died in exile prior to their downturn,
according to Success Theory. This is one of Parfits primary gripes about Success Theory and
also why I feel it has less validity than Preference Hedonism.
Preference Hedonism states, in short, that what is best for someone is for that individual
to be at their happiest. Additionally, Preference Hedonists believe that happiness cannot be
explicitly tied to a matter of pleasure versus pain, but instead has its roots in present desires and
preferences; herein lies the distinction between Narrow and Preference Hedonism. This is
exemplified through Parfits example of Freuds final days where Freud elected to think clearly
in pain instead of cruising through his end-of-life stage on mind-numbing pain killers. Though
Freud suffered incredible physical pain, he did so knowingly as to retain clear and rational
thought. Furthermore, Parfit notes how, according to Preference Hedonism, it is better to be
deceived and unknowing of such, despite this belief being false, because it has no influence on

P.S. ID: 374 8878

the deceivees state of mind or quality of life; daily life carries on as usual. Now, should this
deception be revealed to all at the time of death of the deceivee, Preference Hedonism holds true
that this deception has no ill-effects and that nothing bad can or has happened to the individual.
They are inanimate, unable to desire or feel, and thus this revelation has had no bearing on their
life despite the fact that their perception of life and truth were flawed in at least some regard. On
this matter, I support Preference Hedonism and agree with its claims.
On pages 495 and 496, Parfit returns to his Party-King Lear deliberation and works to
unearth a flaw in both Preference Hedonism and Success Theory. He states how there was
potential for his attending of the party to give greater happiness and that, in choosing to read
King Lear, he has made an incorrect choice. Due to this paradoxical situation, Parfit claims it
becomes impossible to distinguish which would provide greater happiness and due to this
discrepancy, he raises a potential objection to Preference Hedonism, as either one or the other
would have given him a superior evening. Further down page 496, he continues on with:
Whether we appeal to Preference-Hedonism or the Success
Theory, we should not appeal only to the desires or preferences
that I actually have. We should also appeal to the desires and
preferences that I would have had, in the various alternatives
that were, at different times, open to me. One of these
alternatives would be best for me if it is the one in which I would
have the strongest desires and preferences fulfilled. This allows
us to claim that some alternative life would have been better for
me, even if throughout my actual life I am glad that I chose this
life rather than this alternative.

I find this consideration to be irrelevant and not aligning with his previous
statements, as no decisions are made without some consideration and reasoning. In
choosing to remain in to read King Lear, Parfit made a deliberate choice. Surely, there
was a promising alternative, though his preference was, at the given time and with his

P.S. ID: 374 8878

available knowledge, that he would gain more happiness from reading. Extrapolate this
to ones life as well as the Preference Hedonistic views on death. The choices one makes
are reasoned and based upon their desires and preferences of the moment. No alternative
life could have been superior, as looking to happiness-providing alternatives (to swap for
a happier overall life) and saying there could have been a better alternative would nearly
begin to delve into a Summative approach to happiness, which Parfit himself easily
dismisses with the drug addict example. Additionally, Parfit notes parenthetically at the
end of page 496 that Preference Hedonism applies only to present states of mind, so to
look back retroactively at potential alternates, whether it be individual events or entire
lives, would to be in stark contrast with his own definition of Preference Hedonism.
Despite the arguments against Preference Hedonism made by Parfit (examples of
deception and alternate happiness paradox), I maintain my argument in favor of
Preference Hedonism and view it as both superior to Parfits derivative of DesireFulfillment Theory, Success Theory, and also not inferior to some third position.
In attempting to answer his questions of What makes someones life go best?
Derek Parfit explores multiple potential theories; Success Theory (an evolution of DesireFulfillment Theory), Preference Hedonism (not to be confused with Narrow Hedonism),
and also Objective List Theory, though this final theory was not a consideration within
the context of this paper. Through his well-reasoned and deliberate consideration of these
theories, Parfit, himself, concludes that neither of these three are an exact answer to the
looming question, but that it is possibly a combination of their parts. Through
consideration of Parfits proposed theories, and with regard to potential other theories in
existence, I still choose to support, within the context of the prompt, that Preference

P.S. ID: 374 8878

Hedonism remains superior to his Success Theory, and not inferior to some third theory.
I continue my support despite the questions posed by Parfit regarding alternatives to
decisions for the aforementioned reasons and potential shortcomings I believe lie within
Parfits argument.