A Million Save Two Utils-Ten Thousand Lose A Hundred
I think in such a circumstance pure utilitarianism breaks down. You shouldn't just multiply and thus come to the conclusion that the first option is better. Not once the downside to one group is very high versus very low to the other. The problem of course arises if the decision is arrived at via people's votes. Once the downside to those harmed reaches a certain point, adding more people who will very slightly benefit from that downside should not swing the decision. The problem, of course is that if the decision depends on people's votes, the wrong side will win unless half of the people who stand to gain a little, vote against their "interests". They often do do that, either because they evaluated the situation incorrectly, they were lied to by experts who persuaded them that the other side was better for them, they already had more than enough utils so it was no big deal to be magnanimous (eg celebrities) or they simply wanted to be nice.
But often less than half vote this way, especially if the small group who are hurt are people they don't like. Yet another problem with "democracy". "One person, one vote" sounds nice. But is it really a good thing if a voter who very slightly prefers x completely negates a voter (or someone who can't vote) who desperately needs NOT x?
Lordy, making children wear face masks to save some old people makes you a moral monster. Yesterday it was that face masks are emasculating. Bro, show me on the doll where the surgeon touched you.
your guys banned games in parks being accessible to kids because of COVID, for me masks are enough but the extent of the evil violence against kids waged under strictly utilitarian models (which ended up being completely fake as well but it shouldn't matter) was insane.
if at the question "would you be willing to cut a child finger to save x lives" you ask what x is you are a monster.
Answer should be no, never and your question is evil by itself
your guys banned games in parks being accessible to kids because of COVID, for me masks are enough but the extent of the evil violence against kids waged under strictly utilitarian models (which ended up being completely fake as well but it shouldn't matter) was insane.
if at the question "would you be willing to cut a child finger to save x lives" you ask what x is you are a monster.
Answer should be no, never and your question is evil by itself
Lol that's crazy, the kid's finger will heal. And not being able to play some games and wearing a facemask is not the horrendous torture you make it out to be.
Also, **** off with the "you guys" bs. You're taking this Covid stuff way too personally.
Lol that's crazy, the kid's finger will heal. And not being able to play some games and wearing a facemask is not the horrendous torture you make it out to be.
Also, **** off with the "you guys" bs. You're taking this Covid stuff way too personally.
youR guys, the parties you guys agreed with.
your representatives, people you voted for did this, and you agreed.
Yes it is. The math is the same and he's arguing against a naive calculation that nobody really beleives is all you should take into account. Maximizing the EV of a particular function might not always be optimal..... ok but nobody suggested it always was.
Not exactly. I am essentially saying that EVEN IF you subscribe to the idea that many losses of a small number is worse than much fewer losses of a big number and EVEN IF you adjust for marginal utility (eg you would pay $49 for a coin flip to make $100, $3700 for a chance to make $10,000, $25,000 for a chance to make 100k and $70,000 for a chance to make a trillion, it doesn't go up any further. The same $70,000 should be paid for a chance to make a quadrillion). In the case of major harm to a small group there is a point where it doesn't matter how many more people are added to the larger group who are very slightly harmed.
Meanwhile there is that second point that even if those immoral utilitarians calculate that it is better to help the small group the average voter could easily vote to be more immoral yet. These thoughts have been in my head for years but for some reason I chose to mention them now.
Yeah those just seem like details that aren't particularly relevant if you just admit that maximization of utility functions is subjective and 2 different people can rationally chose 2 different outcomes. I don't know anyone arguing against that so I don't even feel the need to bother with a specific example.
Yeah those just seem like details that aren't particularly relevant if you just admit that maximization of utility functions is subjective and 2 different people can rationally chose 2 different outcomes. I don't know anyone arguing against that so I don't even feel the need to bother with a specific example.
Then you have arrow and debreu proving you cannot define a social welfare function so any attempt to aggregate different individual utilities is logically bankrupt.
Utilitarianism cannot stand on any leg at all, the entire edifice lacks consistency.
UTILs not only don't exist, they cannot exist.
Not exactly. I am essentially saying that EVEN IF you subscribe to the idea that many losses of a small number is worse than much fewer losses of a big number and EVEN IF you adjust for marginal utility (eg you would pay $49 for a coin flip to make $100, $3700 for a chance to make $10,000, $25,000 for a chance to make 100k and $70,000 for a chance to make a trillion, it doesn't go up any further. The same $70,000 should be paid for a chance to make a quadrillion). In the case of major harm to a
Did I misunderstand your question? At first I wasn't sure but the AI answer and your followups seem to match what I said.
If you want I can post some links to smarter people than myself addressing this.
But again, this is a classic problem for pure utilitarianism, which not that many people believe in. In moral philosophy most say they are consequentialists, and have a more big picture view. Like, yes you can gain utility being a majority screwing a minority. But you lose utility by living in a society that is run that way. Or, they try to show that some version of individual rights is max ev.
You can also borrow from virtue ethics or religion and say that treating others unjustly is -ev for you. I think there is a lot of truth to this at least for non psychopaths. If I never tipped in my life I could buy an extremely nice car with the money, but it wouldn't be worth being a scumbag both by reputation and in reality.
Politically, it's why you have stuff like the bill of rights.
Did I misunderstand your question? At first I wasn't sure but the AI answer and your followups seem to match what I said.
If you want I can post some links to smarter people than myself addressing this.
But again, this is a classic problem for pure utilitarianism, which not that many people believe in. In moral philosophy most say they are consequentialists, and have a more big picture view. Like, yes you can gain utility being a majority screwing a minority. But you lose utility by living in
Non tippers can't always hide their deeds like voters can.
I was simply saying was that:
1. Even if you are basically a utilitarian you should make exceptions, one of which is that slight harm to many should never win the day no matter how many are in that category, if the alternative is great harm to a few.
2. Voters with secret ballots are sometimes so selfish in these situations that even utilitarians would disagree with their vote.
It's a fundamental mistake to think you can quantify harms in a way that allows equating small harms with big harms. They are qualititively different.
It's why trolley problems have to try to equate majot harms with other major harm.
Was I the only one here who had never heard of a Util before? Once Luciom explained that it was a unit, the title actually made sense!
on democracy.
Critcism that it isn't perfect are pointless. Apart from the moral argument for democracy, comparisons have to be made with other systems. Cue churchill
It's a fundamental mistake to think you can quantify harms in a way that allows equating small harms with big harms. They are qualititively different.
It's why trolley problems have to try to equate majot harms with other major harm.
It's a fundamental mistake to quantify harms for different people and confront them, unless there is clear way to assess then financially.
You cannot balance or confront stuff like "is Alice worse off because she lost her mother at a young age than Bob who became paraplegic at 49".
It's not that we differ in opinions about how those bad events affect people. It's not that we lack data about what those events caused in their lives.
It is epistemologically absurd to confront the 2 because there is no "utility" in the Ethereum which people gain or lose.
It's already pretty hard to do it for a specific individual across time.
So when playing the tradeoff game, about non-monetary damage, it's impossible to define a function you want to maximize.
It's not about opinions: there is no way to assess the damage (or benefit) of a higher divorce rate in the population vs a better treatment of homosexuals.
You can have your own opinion of which of the 2 societies are better sure. But that's not predicated on people benefits or losses, only on your personal preferences.
It's a fundamental mistake to think you can quantify harms in a way that allows equating small harms with big harms. They are qualititively different.
It's why trolley problems have to try to equate majot harms with other major harm.
This is wrong because we do it all the times in society with reasonable outcomes.
We do count minutes spent in traffic for millions of people vs lives lost.
Otherwise speed limits would be 10 mph everywhere
We do all sorts of things in society. They don't justify anything morality. Usually it's about what we can manage. Bozos like to put numbers on it because they think they can't manage anything they can't measure.
We do all sorts of things in society. They don't justify anything morality. Usually it's about what we can manage. Bozos like to put numbers on it because they think they can't manage anything they can't measure.
It's also incredibly difficult to define well-being, let alone quantify it. We can come up with ideas that help society move along and stay functional, and I think those should mostly grounded in morality, but in the end, it's impossible to remain consistent if we want a free society. As to quantifying well-being (leaving that term somewhat ambiguous for the time being), let's say person A and person B find themselves in the same amount of debt. Person A may not suffer as much as person B, even though they find themselves in the same situation. In fact, you could probably equalize all external factors, and they'd still experience a different amount of suffering. There are also different kinds of suffering, various levels of experience with each one, and an an individual's ability to deal with them.
It's also not exactly clear what is good for us. For example, stealing is wrong and if made legal would lead to a chaotic situation. However, having something stolen from you might be a net positive because the knowledge gained from the experience and its future consequences might outweigh the material loss. A similar argument could be made for the thief. If there are situations where stealing is justified, it comes down to the individual's understanding of their own actions in a given situation, but society doesn't really work that way.
It's also incredibly difficult to define well-being, let alone quantify it. We can come up with ideas that help society move along and stay functional, and I think those should mostly grounded in morality, but in the end, it's impossible to remain consistent if you want to a free society. As to quantifying well-being (leaving that term somewhat ambiguous for the time being), let's say person A and person B find themselves in the same amount of debt. Person A may not suffer as much as person B, e
Oh the idea is self-assessment (and it already makes everything untreatable).
If you add the possibility that people can't necessarily gauge their own benefits correctly that's an order of magnitude more complexity to an already intractable problem
It's also incredibly difficult to define well-being, let alone quantify it. We can come up with ideas that help society move along and stay functional, and I think those should mostly grounded in morality, but in the end, it's impossible to remain consistent if we want a free society. As to quantifying well-being (leaving that term somewhat ambiguous for the time being), let's say person A and person B find themselves in the same amount of debt. Person A may not suffer as much as person B, even
Pretty much agree with this.
Utilitarianism is a good idea which we find satisfying. It informs our moral actions but it can't determine them. And clearly it doesn't determine our actions because no one is a utilitarian. We give to charity but not remotely like how we would if we we utilitarians. We may give blood but we dont kill ourselves to provide organs for multiple people etc.
Pretty much agree with this.
Utilitarianism is a good idea which we find satisfying. It informs our moral actions but it can't determine them. And clearly it doesn't determine our actions because no one is a utilitarian. We give to charity but not remotely like how we would if we we utilitarians. We may give blood but we dont kill ourselves to provide organs for multiple people etc.
Utilitarianism is the last remnant of positivism, the naive attempt to make society subject to "scientifical rules" by people who lived through actually insane times in the late 19th century early 20th.
It failed, move on
I abduced it because I expected the post to make sense.
