Andrew Reid's essay on the value of education in this journal distinguished
the intrinsic features of education from what education is for, the latter
being ultimately located in the promotion of personal well-being. At a met
a-ethical level, this response accepts Reid's claim about ultimate location
, but challenges his view that prudential goods are desire-independent, arg
uing for a desire-dependent conception based on supra-individual, but not a
lways universal-human, preferences. It also questions his claim that the so
urce of educational value lies in the intrinsic features of education, reje
cting the suggestion that epistemological rather ethical considerations sho
uld be the starting-point.