The Dietary Theory of Morality II

What is Wellbeing, Anyway?

Last week I shared my Dietary Theory of Morality. I argued that every day, every human being is confronted by appetites for various activities. Each person, in light of their appetites, then chooses which activities to undertake. A single choice constitutes a decision; a pattern of choices constitutes a moral code.

This raised the question: What moral code ought a person follow? I held that if we establish what something’s function is, we can then evaluate the goodness or badness of that thing relative to the performance of its function, and that the function of a moral code is to enable wellbeing. A good morale code is one that enables wellbeing, and thus is what we ought to follow.

In the Comments, Fabius Minarchus (whose Rules for Reactionaries substack is worth your attention) took me to task because wellbeing itself is susceptible to many definitions.

This was a fortuitous comment because it segues nicely into today’s topic: what exactly is wellbeing and how would we measure it? I first conceived of this problem in my third year of Harvard Law School. I had the great privilege of taking the last course on Philosophy & Law that Professor Robert Nozick (writer of Anarchy State & Utopia) ever taught. My last submission in that course, finished May 5th 2000, was also the last paper I wrote in my academic career, and certainly my best. In the paper I introduced an ethical theory of reproductive perfectionism to answer the question of “what is the good life for man?” The conclusions I reached were relatively repugnant and I discarded the theory as little more than an interesting thought experiment. Two decades later, I began to re-evaluate the utility of my original schema. With modification I now believe it is a proper analysis that fills the gap in the Dietary Theory.

The rest of today’s Substack entry is drawn from my early work on reproductive perfectionism. However, throughout the article, I’ve added some [thoughts in brackets] that supplement my original views with my current views after 22 years of retrospective. Those of you who read on will discover that when I was 25 years old I was even more of an egoistical prick than I am now. Be that as it may, I hope you enjoy reading the thoughts of my youthful mind as we continue the intellectual journey ahead.