After reading about desirism, and discussing it with a few people. I am afraid I am not convinced it is a true moral theory. So to have the question I have answered, I emailed Alonzo Fyfe himself.
Recently, I came across desirism through Luke’s blog and it lead me to your site. I really enjoy your work, and writing style but there really is something I do not understand about desirism after discussing it with a few people.
You already responded to why it is bad to torture children, but I had an issue with your response. You stated that the child killer has to examine why that statement has value, and what that value means. You then conclude that the children have much more reasons to believe that it is immoral.
But I still don’t think that solves anything, as it still becomes subjective in the end. What makes the child’s life more valuable than the desires of the killer? After someone asked me these questions, I kept attempting to answer them but he simply kept asking me why. The thing was, even if I explained why the child’s life is more valuable, he simply asserted that he thinks his desires are more valuable.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer these questions, as I really couldn’t. Because, through the method of desirism(unless I misunderstand it somehow), it still ends up being a subjective problem.
Not really sure if it’s a good question, because I have not read to much into desirism. But it is still one I need answered if I have any hope of following this moral theory.