Derek Parfit's Desire-Satisfaction theories deal primarily with "what makes someone's life go best" (p. 493). In essence, Parfit seeks to determine what exactly makes us happy. In the case of desire-satisfaction theories, he wishes to demonstrate that human beings have needs, and in their pursuit and fulfillment of these needs, people are happy. One of his most appealing theories is the Success Theory, which the following paper will critique.
Parfit has several different theories as to what would bring about happiness through a combination of desire and satisfaction. The Unrestricted Theory claims that "what is best for someone is what would best fulfill all of his desires throughout his life" (p. 494). Basically, anything we have ever wanted throughout our life would increase our happiness if it were fulfilled - even if we do not know it is fulfilled. Parfit outright rejects this theory, as it is impossible to keep an objective tally of everything we have ever experienced, and our desires may change over time.
Instead, the Success theory is presented as a viable alternative to achieve desire-satisfaction. Success Theory deals with all of the preferences that we have about the life we lead (p. 494). In the event that someone wants to not be lied to, a Success Theorist would be worse off if someone lied to them, regardless of whether or not they know it. While it does not disrupt by hope that people do not lie to me, it proves my belief wrong in an objective sense outside my own sense of reason.
One of the biggest tenets of Success Theory lies in the objective assessment of the fulfillment of my desires outside of subjective analysis. Even if I do not think I am a poor parent, I still fail as a parent if my parenting is poor. I do not realize my parenting is poor, but it is; as a result, my desire is not satisfied. The negative effect of this comes into play when factoring in the objective treatment and outcomes of my children's success or happiness. In terms of self-interest it is still bad for me, since I did not fulfill my want to be a good parent. This is one of the most intriguing and puzzling aspects of Success Theory.
In my mind, the Success Theory is the closest that Parfit gets to an objectively strong Desire-Satisfaction theory; it is at least more practical than the Unrestricted Theory, which posits that any momentary, idle whim carried by the person that is unfulfilled could result in a lesser cumulative amount of happiness throughout a person's life. That being said, Success Theory still has a significant number of flaws, given that it also factors in unfulfilled desires we do not know about.
It can be incredibly troubling to factor in a Desire-Satisfaction theory that posits that one is unhappier even when they do not know a desire is unfulfilled. Without the cognitive realization that the desire is unfulfilled, is there really a negative effect on satisfaction? One might argue that, if an actor wants to have a good audition regardless of whether or not they are cast in the part, they would not know if their audition was good. All they can do is potentially think that the audition was good; if the audition was, in fact, bad, the Success Theory states that their life is worse. This is not felt by the person who felt they had a good audition. This particular aspect of Success Theory indicates that cognitive dissonance is immaterial to one's happiness; the objective fulfillment of desires is what truly matters.
Furthermore, one of the biggest problems with Desire-Satisfaction theory is not one of success rate in the fulfillment of these desires, but rather whether or not what one desires is what is objectively best for that person. According to Sidgwick, "a man often desires what he knows is on the whole bad for him" (Adams, p. 1). Desire-Satisfaction theory presumes that what is good for someone is wholly dependent on what they prefer to happen or have. This is most certainly an anti-paternalistic statement, as it does state that man is the master of his own destiny. While this is an interesting thought, the limited scope of our experience to date means that we may not necessarily know what is best for us. This leaves us with the need to take advantage of others with wisdom, who may be able to use their own experience to guide us.
In the end, however, it must be said that the argument that one's preferences is what is good for one places an interesting emphasis on Well-Being over Satisfaction. What may satisfy us is not necessarily what would be best for us; in some ways, this may clash directly with our survival instinct. For example, someone who smokes may do it because it satisfies the desire for the feeling of smoking and all its supplementary effects (the comfort of nicotine, the possible feeling of acceptance or 'coolness' among peers who smoke). The smoker likely knows that the act of smoking is a bad one, and one not in line with their Well-Being, but it does increase their level of Satisfaction. A smoker quitting smoking, particularly if their desire to smoke is immediately greater than their desire to better their health or increase their lifespan, is a move toward well-being that may leave them unsatisfied.
Parfit's Success Theory is contingent upon the individual desires of a person being fulfilled as a measure of happiness or satisfaction. For the most part, it provides a reasonably successful explanation for what makes us happy, or what kind of life is best. However, there exist some troubling issues that could be taken with the theory, namely the objectivity by which something is fulfilling, regardless of what the individual thinks. Furthermore, Adams believes that desire-satisfaction can often run counter to well-being, demonstrating that we may not necessarily know what is best for us. With this in mind, Parfit's Success Theory is an interesting desire-satisfaction theory, but not one that adequately satisfied all the metrics for a life that is truly lived 'best.'
Works Cited
Adams, Robert. "Well-Being and Excellence."
Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.
