Utilitas· 2026Q1
An Asymmetry Problem for Telic Perfectionism: A Reply to Kauppinen
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
This paper argues that Antti Kauppinen's 'Telic Perfectionism,' a refined view of well-being, fails to overcome the disvalue objection from pain due to an inherent asymmetry in its framework.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Perfectionistic views of well-being face the 'disvalue objection from pain'.
- Antti Kauppinen's 'Telic Perfectionism' posits that negative experiences have a 'formal aim' to self-eliminate.
- The frustration of this 'formal aim' is argued by Kauppinen to be robustly bad.
- This reply identifies an asymmetry within Kauppinen's framework, undermining his argument.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract The disvalue objection from pain is a key objection against perfectionistic views of well-being. In response, perfectionists have attempted to develop refined versions of perfectionism that circumvent the disvalue objection. One recent novel attempt is by Antti Kauppinen, who develops what he calls “Telic Perfectionism.” Kauppinen argues that negative experiences like painful experiences have a “formal aim,” viz., to eliminate the negative experiences themselves. This formal aim is an internal standard contained within our human capacities to have positive or negative experiences. Kauppinen thinks that the frustration of this formal aim (i.e., the subject continuing to have negative experiences) is in fact robustly bad. This would thus allow the badness of pain to be accounted for in perfectionistic terms. In this reply, I argue that Kauppinen’s attempt is unsuccessful due to an asymmetry present within his framework.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Utilitas, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Philosophy
PhilosophyArts and Humanities