1. Graves 1
London Graves
PHIL-3073
Professor Ellis
Term Paper Assignment
Is Anything Anyone Wants Really Just A
“Pet Project”?
Common-sense moral institutions favor some ends over others, as described by
substantive theory. An example of this could be that it is morally better to increase the
funding for education in under-developed countries rather than create a mass collection
of senior citizen pornography. However, a purely procedural conception of morality
denies that substantive ends can really be compared in this way. Is anything that anyone
wants really just a “pet project”? In this paper, I will explain that the issue with this
argument is that it under-values individual autonomy. Let us start at the beginning and
explain what substantive and formal theories of well-being state before we go into too
much detail.
Substantive theory of well-being says what things are intrinsically good for
people. Substantive views state that if the end is morally good, then it is also intrinsically
good. An example of this theory is Hedonism. Hedonism states that well-being is
happiness or pleasure. Formal theory/ purely procedural morality specifies on how one
finds out what things are intrinsically good for them (Hausman and McPherson 119).

2. Graves 2
Doing what is right determines what is good, on this view. However, formal theory does
not say what those things are but how to find them. Formal theory can involve less
controversial philosophical commitments than substantive about what is good and bad
for individuals. This is because it can leave what is good for people up to the people
themselves, and says what is good or bad about the situation is based on the steps or
actions of getting to the result. An example of formal theory is the satisfaction of
preferences. On this example, the right procedure is to consult your preferences. An
example that intertwines both theories is in a football flag situation. A referee calls un-
sportsman-like conduct. A substantive theory person would look at the rules that the
referee has to follow to make sure there was not a mistake in the call. A formal theory
person would say that it is un-sportsman-like conduct just because the referee said so
because this is the procedure.
The argument behind this idea is normative in nature. It claims that everyone
should do as they wish with their lives, and it is not up to others to either follow that
path or deter them from following what they believe is right for them. This argument
depends on the autonomy of individuals. Autonomy is where an individual has the
freedom over their actions or a kind of “protective sphere around the individuals”
(Hausman and McPherson 160). The individual’s obligations are voluntary and they are
not to be forced into doing anything that they do not wish to do. It is important that
people make the choices of what to do on their own because they are the ones that will

3. Graves 3
be directly affected from those actions. Sure, others may also be affected, but the
individual that makes the choice could be the one affected more deeply. It is their life,
should they not be the ones to make choices about how to live it?
In addition, if we force others to help us with what we believe then do they not
have the same right to force us to do their beliefs. If one helps someone with that
individuals personal beliefs and it is completely voluntary help then it is okay. However,
if they are forced to do it, then it is not. It is important that the person offering the help
is able to make their own choices because they are the ones that know what is good or
bad for them individually. The idea of autonomy of individuals is a Libertarian idea. The
basic idea of Libertarianism is all about self-ownership. Each individual is in complete
control of themselves, and can do as they wish as long as they are not infringing on the
lives of anyone else around them. This is the reason Hospers states that anything that
anyone wants is just a “pet projects,” and they are all equal to one another.
Hospers states, “Anything someone wants is a “pet project.”” “Besides, if I have
the right to force him to help me pay for my pet projects hasn’t he equally the right to
force me to pay for his?” (Hospers 350)
Williams puts it in a different way, “The results people often turn to in order to
determine the presence or absence of justice are educational and occupational status,
income, life expectancy, and other socioeconomic factors. However, justice or fairness
cannot be determined by result. It is a process question” (Williams, 185). In this quote,

4. Graves 4
Williams is stating that to determine if something is morally good, one must look at the
process or steps it took to come to the end. If the process is morally right, then the end
is morally right as well. One cannot look at just the means ends judgments of the good.
This idea is based on a purely procedural conception of the good.
It is my personal belief that this argument fails. My reasoning behind this is that
people may not know what is good or bad for them, but they may not act upon the
knowledge they do have. Does this make their passions and ideas just “pet projects”?
Not necessarily! People want what they want for reasons and sometimes what they
want is good and sometimes what they want is bad. This is based on if the good is
ethical or not. If it is going to hurt you or someone else, it may not be ethically good. If
anything that anyone wanted was just a “pet project,” does that mean that Mother
Theresa was wrong in doing all the wonderful things she achieved? The reasoning that
the argument fails is because it under-rates the value of autonomy.
Autonomy is something that everyone should be able to express. If one wishes to
have a mass collection of senior citizen pornography, who am I to decide if that is a good
or bad thing for them? The other situation also holds the same truth. Who am I to
decide if we should further the education of children in other countries? This may be
right for some people and wrong for others. Look at this theoretical example. The local
opera house is running low on funding. They decide to tax the people that live in that
community to supplement their income and keep the opera house open. The opera

5. Graves 5
house could be a great thing. It can become a place for the younger generations to hang
out and get involved in their community. It could keep the younger generations from
getting into drugs and alcohol. It could also bring life into the community. However,
taxing people without their consent is violating their autonomy. This is an example
where something that is meant to be a good thing is actually bad because it is not
respecting individual’s autonomy. Therefore you cannot simply state that the ends are
good for people because of the violation. This taxation then can become the opera
house’s “pet project” because they want something to happen (i.e. keep the opera
house open), and they want to tax people to achieve this goal. However, if the people in
the community do not wish for their tax money to go to the opera house it can go
against their autonomy to do as they wish. If the opera house has the rights to force the
community to pay taxes to keep them open, does the community have the right to
forcibly take some of the income from the opera house to fund their personal “pet
projects” as well?
In conclusion simply stating that some ends are better than others seems like
common sense; however, a purely procedural conception of morality denies that
substantive ends can really be compared in this way. One must look at the means to
those ends to determine if they are good for people or not. The main reason why the
argument fails is because it under-rates the value of individual autonomy. People should
have the right to do as they wish as long as they are not interfering with the autonomy

6. Graves 6
of others. Also, some things may be meant for good, but end up being bad because they
interfere with the individual autonomy of the people. One cannot simply state that
keeping an opera house open because of the benefits that the community will receive
gives them the right to tax the community people to make it happen. One should look at
a Libertarian point of view to see if those actions violate the autonomy of the people it
effects. If the community does not wish to be taxed and those taxes are forcibly taken
from them, then the taxes are in violation of the autonomy of the people. Also, if the
opera house has the right to forcibly take things from the people, do the people also
have the right to forcibly take things from the opera house? These things could be
defined as “pet projects” and everyone has them in one way or another. However, who
am I to decide which is better? Everyone has different values that determine how they
make their choices, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those choices and values are always
bad. They might be for you personally, but for them it may be what is right.

7. Graves 7
References
Hausman, Daniel M. and Michael S. McPherson. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy,
and Public Policy. Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Text.
Hospers, John. "What Libertarian Is." Mappes, Thomas A. and Jane S. Zembaty. Social
Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. Fifth Edition. Mc-Graw Hill Companies, Inc. ,
n.d. 349-357.
Williams, Walter E. "The Arguement for Free Markets: Morality Vs Effeciency." CATO
Journal 15.2-3 (1995/1996): 179-189.