Review of Satisficing and Maximizing: Weber
There are, according to Weber, at least two “perspectives” on life: that of the moment and that of the life as a whole. Each entails different values. What is valued from the momentary point of view may prove almost irrelevant when viewed from a “bird’s-eye perspective.” For example, getting stung by a bee is painful and elicits seemingly urgent attempts to deal with the situation. But on your deathbed or while looking at your life during a heavenly “life review” this episode might seem to be of no interest or of little significance. On the other hand, “[j]ust as some genuine values are lost to narrower perspectives, as they are accessible only to broader perspectives, some values are lost to broader perspectives, as they are accessible only to narrower perspectives.” (Satisficing and Maximizing, 85) OK, but so what? Somehow, Weber claims in an example, one might limit one’s professional aspirations, even though this does not result in a better life overall. This is permitted, however, “in virtue of the claims of the momentary perspective.” (88) On the other hand, “all the minor ups and downs of day-to-day life are of little importance from the perspective of one’s life as a whole. What matters most to the quality of one’s life are one’s long-term projects, which may include commitment to family, career, art, or politics.” (90) Immediately we see a problem. It is not written in the stars that long-term projects must necessarily outweigh (in importance or expected upon completion utility) short-term pleasures. It’s up to each individual to form his own entirely subjective preferences and thereby to decide whether to exercise his tactical or strategic intelligence and whether to care more about the moment or about far-flung future. Secondly, Weber denies that “there is a single, authoritative measure of value. … Well-being is relative to a perspective, and each perspective makes genuine normative claims.” (93) I couldn’t disagree more. The choice between favoring immediate delights as vs. those that require long-term investment is ranked on the same single value scale within the mind of every individual. And one has to choose, if the values, such as values belonging to some two “perspectives,” come into conflict. That choice demonstrates which perspective the actor has allowed to influence the choice and which perspective was, on the contrary, slighted. Choosing one or the other reflects each person’s attempt to — what else? — maximize happiness. Third, our author himself writes: “One might ask: If it doesn’t matter from the perspective of one’s life as a whole, why not go ahead and maximize momentary good … if from the momentary perspective one has a marked preference for A to B, and from the perspective of one’s life as a whole one is indifferent between A and B?” (92) Weber privileges the “life as a whole” perspective, saying that in momentary matters we can be happy with what is “good enough.” Such privileging may be sensible, but it is only an assumption and certainly not a necessary one. Some people may privilege the moment; is Weber going to claim that now in matters affecting life as a whole such a person would be content with what is good enough? What if one cares for both? After all, a life is made out of single moments. For example, suppose that in studying today I get an interesting idea. That occurs in the now, in the present moment, but surely, it contributes crucially to my overall career as a philosopher. No, the split value scale among different perspectives is an untenable idea.
Lastly, our author argues that maximizing conceptions “seem to take only one of the other perspective into account” and are therefore “not humane.” (99) Of course, he has it completely backwards. It is the maximizing individual who balances the demands of all perspectives to achieve the greatest possible happiness. Satisficing, on the other hand, calls one perspective master and makes it rational not to improve your well-being as seen from the slave perspectives. You are supposed to be happy with what is supposedly good enough. Why, I haven’t a clue.
To be continued…