Sarah's Meaty Question

[Sarah A.]

I am (unintentionally) riding on Theron's shirt tails I fear. Ah well,
here it goes:
Competent Judges, The Proof, and Perfectionism:
Perfectionists about value seem to have two options: either human
nature dictates what is objectively valuable for human beings or there
exists some list of objective goods that the most perfect human life
will be aimed at attaining (there will be variations on both views).
Mill suggests that 1) the only standard by which to judge what
pleasures are qualitatively of higher value is by looking to the
competent judges (those who have experienced multiple sources of
pleasure (e.g. sensuous pleasure and intellectual pleasures) and 2)
that those who criticize Utilitarianism for being a doctrine suited
only for swine belie an assumption about human capacity for pleasure.
The second claim is especially interesting because Mill goes on to
claim that, if human beings were constitutes as swine are constituted,
then the life which make one species happy would suffice for the
happiness of the other. These two claims, combined with Mill’s “proof”
suggest either that 3) Mill is committed to a desire satisfaction view
of the good or 4) that Mill takes on a form of perfectionism that
judges the good by the actual constitution of human nature.
My question is, if Mill is committed to 4, is there any way to read
the text that allows Mill to have some objective view of the good
(e.g. not contingent on the actual desires of the exemplars of human
beings); if humans were just like pigs, would the higher pleasures be
anything other than what a dignified pig would have a preference for?
If not, then is his view reducible to a desire/preference satisfaction
view of the good? Is there a substantive difference between the two at
meta-ethical bottom?

[David]

My earlier Reply seems to have been lost in the ether. Here's the
gist of it:

I don't see why the grounding of perfectionist ideals in actual human
constitution prevents it from delivering pretty objective goods. If
Dick is a human with thoroughly piggish desires, then, because his is
a human (of normal capacity), his piggish desires are base. Now, if
Dick has been extremely piggish for a long time, it may be that in one
sense he now has only piggish capacities. Here, we might distinguish,
as I have recommended, between actual and potential capacities.
People with high potential capacities may not develop actual
capacities if not given the right education, opportunities, and
responsibilities. Or someone may lose actual capacities through
disuse, but still retain potential capacities. If perfectionist
ideals, are relativized to potential capacities, then we can lament
and criticize Dick' actual piggish nature. We'd have to imagine that
Dick no longer had human (better personal) potential capacities to
lose perfectionist leverage for highbrow criticism. But if Dick is
that far gone, he is a pig. Piggish desires must be the best he could
hope for. this could still be a cause for regret, insofar as he (must
have) lost his better self.

DB