ABSTRACT
In the last chapter I argued that there is textual evidence for at least three versions of the Some Desires Interpretation. First, it might be that all permissible desires lack phenomenological saliency. Second, it might be that all permissible desires are unselfish. Third, it might be that only a desire for moks.a is permissible. I argued that the third view, the Moks.a-only Interpretation, is implausible. Since states of affairs other than moks.a are valuable, desires for states of affairs other than moks.a are permissible.
