An Objection to Parfit's View

For this entry, I will defend the objective list theory (OLT). Although I am still uncommitted at this point, I tend towards the OLT. Derek Parfit’s view in our excerpt of “Reasons and Persons” is not an OLT, but a hybrid, combining the OLT and the mental states theory (MST). His hybridization is a result of his belief that “each put forward as sufficient something that was only necessary.” My goal here is to defend the OLT by showing that it is indeed sufficient. It might be useful to quote the most salient part of Parfit’s view: “And, if they are entirely devoid of pleasure, there is no value in knowledge, rational activity, love, or the awareness of beauty. What is of value, or is good for someone, is to have both; to be engaged in these activities, and to be strongly wanting to be so engaged.”
I want to bring up something that wasn’t raised in class. Beyond the intuition that a life with most of the items on the OL but not pleasure, I believe that there is an active reason why Parfit’s view is wrong. Take the case of a dreaded course in college, and analyze it from Parfit’s perspective. One has no incentive to attempt to really learn the material in the course for an intrinsic reason. (This is assuming that the choice will not affect mental states.) Instead, one would choose to “get by”, by studying as little as possible and learning as little as possible to pass with a sufficient grade. By doing this, one would have more time to dedicate to the things that make one happy. However, I firmly believe that actually learning the material (and the discipline required to learn an uninteresting topic) would increase one’s well-being. Parfit appears committed to advising the hypothetical student to not really learn the course if learning it won’t make the student happy.