Defend or criticize a conception of well-being or an account of what makes life good by making an argument that addresses the topic question(s) and responds to some of the problems and arguments from the texts we’ve considered in the first few weeks of class.
- Enter the debate between subjectivists and objectivists about the nature of the good life. Is getting what you want enough to make your life good, as Heathwood argues? Is it even necessary? If you think so, then how would you respond to some of the objections raised by Shafer-Landau (TFE, Ch 4), Hooker, or Wolf? If getting what you want is not enough (or even necessary) for a good life, then what more is needed and why?
Perhaps happiness is the answer. But then what is happiness? And is happiness enough? Is that the greatest good that we can achieve in life? Is happiness the key to a good life? Or do we desire something more out of life than happiness, such as meaning? Or freedom? Or knowledge? Or love? Or artistic creation? Or devotion to God? Or virtue? Or social justice? What would you put on the list of intrinsic goods and why?