Hedonism, preferentialism, and value bearers

Abstract

It is argued that a fundamental issue between hedonism and preferentialism concerns the question of the bearers of final value? While hedonism is here defined as the view that ascribes final value only to concrete sensations of pleasure, preferentialism is initially understood as claiming that final value accrues to abstract objects (states of affairs). A “hedonist” argument against preferentialism is considered, viz., that preferentialists are debarred from nonderivatively valuing what hedonists value (concrete sensations). Various replies with which a preferentialist might counter this objection are examined and rejected.