Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

74
 questions about 
Beauty
38
 questions about 
Race
110
 questions about 
Biology
571
 questions about 
Philosophy
281
 questions about 
Mind
34
 questions about 
Music
87
 questions about 
Law
69
 questions about 
Business
32
 questions about 
Sport
151
 questions about 
Existence
219
 questions about 
Value
77
 questions about 
Emotion
75
 questions about 
Perception
67
 questions about 
Truth
67
 questions about 
Feminism
2
 questions about 
Culture
153
 questions about 
Sex
51
 questions about 
War
284
 questions about 
Language
124
 questions about 
Profession
36
 questions about 
Literature
82
 questions about 
Identity
58
 questions about 
Punishment
243
 questions about 
Justice
24
 questions about 
Suicide
2
 questions about 
Action
68
 questions about 
Happiness
58
 questions about 
Abortion
88
 questions about 
Physics
4
 questions about 
Economics
1269
 questions about 
Ethics
217
 questions about 
Education
23
 questions about 
History
115
 questions about 
Children
133
 questions about 
Love
43
 questions about 
Color
104
 questions about 
Art
79
 questions about 
Death
96
 questions about 
Time
166
 questions about 
Freedom
363
 questions about 
Logic
54
 questions about 
Medicine
390
 questions about 
Religion
107
 questions about 
Animals
31
 questions about 
Space
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
208
 questions about 
Science
27
 questions about 
Gender
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia

Question of the Day

There are two sorts of issues here. Let's start with the one that I think underlies your discomfort.

The fact that something is my goal may matter to me, but that doesn't make it intrinsically valuable. Indeed, it might be intrinsically horrid. If someone's goal is to brutally torture an innocent child to death (writing those words actually makes me shudder, but that's part of the point) then their goal is the very opposite of intrinsically valuable, and the fact that they would value achieving it makes them evil without adding an iota of value to their "achievement." In a nutshell: the fact that I value something doesn't entail that what I value is valuable. Whether an "achievement" is valuable isn't a matter of whether someone values it, but of what the achievement itself amounts to.

There might seem to be a utilitarian argument to the contrary: the pleasure the sadist gets from his cruelty adds to the sum total of happiness in the world. But all this really shows is that a certain version of utilitarianism is morally confused. Suppose that through sheer accident, an innocent person dies a horrible death. And suppose that Sam the sadist takes enormous pleasure in this fact, even though he did nothing to bring it about. Anyone who thinks the world is a little better overall than it would have been if Sam had remained ignorant of the tragedy and not taken pleasure in it is someone whose moral instincts I wouldn't trust for a moment. Pleasure is not always good; sometimes it's evil. And likewise, achievements are not always good; sometimes they're vile.

However, all of what's been said so far relies on understanding benefit morally. I've read "intrinsically valuable" as a matter of moral worth. But there is a morally neutral use of the word "benefit"; that's just a fact about how we speak. People clearly can benefit in this narrow sense from ill-gotten gains. It would be strange to say that thieves never benefit in any sense from their theft. If we prescind from the moral sense of "benefit," it would be hard to make the case that someone who commits a terrible act can't benefit in any sense at all. The very phrase "ill-gotten gains" makes the point; what's ill-gotten can still be a gain.

However, this raises a new thought. Acts of cruelty or injustice may serve my narrow ends, and in that sense, they may be to my benefit, but they make me worse. And one might think that there's some way of doing the arithmetic that allows us to ask whether on balance a terrible act can be to one's benefit—whether the selfish "benefit" will inevitably be outweighed by the moral cost. My first inclination is to say that there's no need to crack this nut, but that may be too quick. The distinction between moral and non-moral goods is almost certainly not as simple as the distinction between two independent dimensions on a graph.