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?
Those aliens could help you a lot.
With some powers of abduction you could be a real threat
probably best
Utils, to my knowledge are generally invoked when it comes to an individual's money bankroll and how it relates to "marginal utility". Most people are only a little bit happier if they have a billion as compared to a million. In other words, if they think that 100K gives them ten utils they probably think that a million is worth about 40 utils and a billion perhaps 100 utils. If such a person stands to gain in some non-monetary way you simply relate it to what amount of money would make him equally happy as the thing he is gaining and then assign him the corresponding amount of utils.
Whether we can accurately measure how many utils is gained by a decision was not the subject of the OP. The point of the OP was that EVEN IF there was no disagreement as to the number of utils gained or loss and EVEN IF you subscribed to the multiply by the number of people affected technique, it still could be wrong to conclude that the best decision is the higher number. I am not sure that everyone realized that was one of the two things I was saying.
As to my other point about "democracy" especially the one person one vote aspect, even Patrick Henry and Winston Churchill would stop being big fans as the number of voters became more and more dumb and selfish.
From about 21 to 31 minutes into this debate is a typical example of this. Destiny wants to be consistent and gets painted into a corner where he rationalizes insane positions.
I saw enough of this to come to the conclusion that the important part of this debate is the way these guys are analyzing things. If more people discussed things this way the world would be fine.
As to my other point about "democracy" especially the one person one vote aspect, even Patrick Henry and Winston Churchill would stop being big fans as the number of voters became more and more dumb and selfish.
I'm not sure they have but Churchill's point is 'what have you got that is less worse'?
There can be variants of democracy that are better than the current variant.
Examples:
1) thresholds to pass stuff over 50% (imagine the filibuster being in the constitution)
2) popular vote required to confirm legislation that increases public expense (not to propose it, but basically a veto power to the public for every piece of legislation)
3)different, additional checks and balances in the constitution (example: the federal reserve explicitly independent as a constitutional power; some law enforcement units under the sole and direct control of the judiciary)
4) sunset clauses for most laws: must be renewed or they expire
5) automatic cessation from office if convicted, not candidable if convicted for any elected office.
And so on and on. Some might be worse , just listing options
Can't we just find an ethical way to take the vote away from the Playbigs of the world? That would fix a lot of problems, I daresay.
Discussions about the form of democracy are important. A 'book of moses' constiution is obviously a poor form imo.
Churchill was once in favour of 'one man one vote' but he changed his mind
I know, I know, "who decides who gets the vote?" I mean, fine, if nobody else wants to, I'll do it.
Can't we just find an ethical way to take the vote away from the Playbigs of the world? That would fix a lot of problems, I daresay.
I am not persuaded that he votes worse than many other otherwise apparently "normal" people do.
The vast majority of human beings are truly terrible at decision making in general
I'm goign to float the controversial view that if everyone voted like the playbigs did then the world would be a much better place.
You think it floats that well. Excellent
Maybe some abductiveness has rubbed off
Slightly more seriously, I don't think there is anything fundamentally unethical or immoral with saying that if someone is too feebleminded to understand the basics of how the world around them works, then they shouldn't have a say in how it's run, and reasonable people can agree exactly how feebleminded is too feebleminded. The problem is of course introducing a mechanism which has a high risk of being abused for voter suppression. That's a practical problem, albeit perhaps one without a solution, not one of ethics or morality.
It's definitely a question of morality
On a practical note it would be so few people that it would make no difference.
Yes i know what you think of people (or like to say you do)
In practice an old regular used to talk about sharpening the guillotine.
What do you think would happen if every single employee got a say in how a company is run? Do you think it would be run better or worse than if only certain employees had a say?
Why do you think it's a question of morality? I'm happy to work something out with the people who don't get a vote about their taxes. Not like they're going to be contributing much anyway, no great loss.
It's not like a company. I'm sure we have some different ideas on them as well.
The moral argument for democracy is that it's a sharing of moral sovereignty. For example we may disgaree on the laws but we accept they should apply equally because of democracy.
and no you would not be happy to work it out those you dont let vote or their supporters (I'm definitely in there somewhere). You would be most unhappy.
If 20% of the electorate was afforded two votes (because they were well educated OR they studied a driver's style manual available to everyone), and they unanimously voted for x, a 75% vote for y overcomes it. If, more reasonably, the elites split 60-40 then the normies only have to go 55% to overturn it. Power mad elites would only have an effect on close decisions that sometimes go wrong because of low info gullible people.
And how do you think that would play with the people?
Can you see the headlines?
If 20% of the electorate was afforded two votes (because they were well educated OR they studied a driver's style manual available to everyone), and they unanimously voted for x, a 75% vote for y overcomes it. If, more reasonably, the elites split 60-40 then the normies only have to go 55% to overturn it. Power mad elites would only have an effect on close decisions that sometimes go wrong because of low info gullible people.
There is no reason to think "educated" people make better decisions, especially these days.
There might be ways to determine which people are expected to make better decisions but being "educated" is a very bad proxy.
And I talk as someone with a college degree with parents and grandparents with college degrees.
Absolutely no reason to think someone without a college degree who owns a carwash is worse at decision-making than someone with a college degree in psychology for example.
And, power mad elites have children. The children reverse to mean. The elites want to keep them having over average jobs even if they don't deserve them. The elites create fake credentials to give their very average children better prospects.
The elite has to be porous and failed elite children have to suffer while successful normal people have to be rewarded massively. That's what makes (made) america special.
The new normal is called democrat academia and the democratic party, credentialism, and thinking having a college degree in some Marxist inspired discipline where the slang is complex enough means you are a better person
