tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post1384272062885457813..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: Interpersonal Utility ComparisonsDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-6226751820057757982022-06-26T13:45:08.300-07:002022-06-26T13:45:08.300-07:00@Anonymous:
Interpersonal comparison isn't abo...@Anonymous:<br />Interpersonal comparison isn't about comparing the utility of my getting something to the utility to me of your getting something. It's about comparing the utility to me of my getting something to the utility to you of you getting something.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-61202567103384918502022-06-24T21:26:22.224-07:002022-06-24T21:26:22.224-07:00《I cannot know another person’s preferences with c...《I cannot know another person’s preferences with certainty but I have no serious doubt that the disutility to a random stranger of being tortured to death is greater than the disutility to me of stubbing my toe.》<br /><br />Doesn't revealed preference theory indicate that most of us tolerate torture of others much more than personal injuries? Is Assange in jail because his revealed preference actually proves he cared more about tortured others than his own freedom?<br /><br />In other words does the disutility of acting on news of a random stranger being tortured outweigh the disutility of ignoring a stubbed toe? In practice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-81072191706230387242022-06-24T14:52:05.540-07:002022-06-24T14:52:05.540-07:00Modern Mugwump,
Your re: misrepresents my positio...Modern Mugwump,<br /><br />Your re: misrepresents my position. I am not arguing that utilitarianism leads to socialism and that this consequently makes socialism good. To the contrary, I am presenting a reductio ad absurdum.<br /><br />eg: Concluding that Alice would like my cookie more than Bob does not make me a socialist. Neither does the "harm" incurred by saying "Sic semper tyrannis" to people who really want to tyrannize me.<br /><br />---<br />Powers,<br /><br />I'm not David, but I don't think that utility is restricted to short-term happiness. Rather, that short-term happiness is a subset of utility.<br /><br />So when when you're deciding whether to have ice cream, that's based on your understanding of the ice cream's nature with respect to yourself, and how its consumption will interact with your values.<br /><br />If you value long-term health very highly, and feel you've been eating too much ice cream lately, you will forgo the ice cream, deeming its consumption a disutility. Or at the very least, a suboptimal gain in utility, relative to other things (eg: Eating some food which is less fattening, but similarly tasty).BTRBThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08646516305199013052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-56611741370581877602022-06-04T08:56:39.417-07:002022-06-04T08:56:39.417-07:00Hi David,
I've been a little puzzled about th...Hi David,<br /><br />I've been a little puzzled about this lately; maybe you can be of some help. Ignoring, at first the issue of interpersonal utility comparisons, I'm actually confused about what a personal utility judgement would be. Suppose I am trying to decide whether to eat some ice cream. Is the thought: 'will eating this ice cream make me happier than not?' synonymous with 'will eating this ice cream increase my utility?'.<br /><br />If that is the case, how is one judging happiness, and when? Ice cream may give short-term pleasure, but perhaps at a longer-term cost. If I make a judgment to eat the ice cream, am I making an intrapersonal utility judgment that 'me' in the present benefits more from the short-term pleasure than 'me' in the future suffers from the potential long-term harm?<br /><br />Thank youPowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17928595040710631264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-37314722456927258522022-06-04T08:54:51.199-07:002022-06-04T08:54:51.199-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17928595040710631264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-39818050572924690972022-06-01T23:01:35.417-07:002022-06-01T23:01:35.417-07:00The comments appear to be about whether utilitaria...The comments appear to be about whether utilitarianism is a correct philosophy. You are welcome to argue about that, but it doesn't have much to do with my post. <br /><br />What I am arguing is that interpersonal utility comparisons are possible, something many people deny. That leaves open the question of what they are good for.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-68627889555278272072022-06-01T04:48:53.259-07:002022-06-01T04:48:53.259-07:00@BTRBT agreed re socialism - if utilitarianism lea...@BTRBT agreed re socialism - if utilitarianism leads to socialism, that's a pretty good endorsement of socialism. But I don't think it does. Theory aside, every socialist country to date has been pretty miserable - more or less linearly with socialism.<br /><br />Unless you interpret "socialism" the way the Chinese Communist Party (post-Mao) and Elon Musk do - as meaning "whatever is good for the people as a whole". Few argue with that (other than quibbling over the name). Free markets and property rights seem to be good for the people as a whole.<br /><br />@DavidFriedman The traditional answer to utilitarianism is the idea of "rights". People have "rights" that others can't legitimately infringe. That prevents torture for the sake of entertainment (even if it's economically efficient). You can go whole hog on utilitarianism so long as you don't infringe on anybody's rights.<br /><br />Rights are a good idea - we should do more of that.Modern Mugwumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17893227760361314933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-52328723313947323832022-05-31T03:20:52.536-07:002022-05-31T03:20:52.536-07:00William, why would utilitarian ethics lead us to s...William, why would utilitarian ethics lead us to socialism? Do you think that socialist policies actually provide a net benefit over cost to peaceful people?<br />If so, that's *quite* the tacit endorsement, and one which I would be highly skeptical of.<br /><br />In any case, anecdotally I've found that some level of "harm for benefit" is pragmatically unavoidable. Detractors usually disregard this point by redefining harm to mean only that which they oppose. Obvious examples of broadly acceptable harms in lieu of net utility:<br />- Any judiciary process, in which a person is subject to unusual discomfort for the sake of clarity. Some percentage of those who go through this are innocent.<br />- Critique of socialism causing emotional discomfort to its proponents.<br />- Subjecting pedestrians to some degree of risk when driving on an adjacent road.<br /><br />Of course, there's many more.BTRBThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08646516305199013052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-74214329173447132192022-05-30T22:05:47.194-07:002022-05-30T22:05:47.194-07:00《I signal my feelings, including preferences, in f...《I signal my feelings, including preferences, in facial expressions, voice tones, and the like; others appear to do the same, giving me some idea of the strength as well as the ordering of their preferences and comparing to mine.》<br /><br />Do I not know that my own preferences are wilfully intransitive, and others give me daily evidence that their preferences are also intransitive, thus invalidating all of orthodox microeconomics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-66678044312747683062022-05-30T10:44:59.179-07:002022-05-30T10:44:59.179-07:00The trouble with utilitarianism as an ethic is tha...The trouble with utilitarianism as an ethic is that it allows, and indeed requires, that harm be inflicted on one person either for the greater benefit of another person, or for small benefits to a sufficiently large number of other people. See Ursula Le Guin's classic parable "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" for what this implies. I prefer Ayn Rand's concept of a nonsacrificial ethic. Indeed, it seems to me that a nonsacrificial ethic is essentially compatible with libertarianism, but a utilitarian one seems to lead us downward to socialism.William H. Stoddardnoreply@blogger.com