2/n The central argument (afaik) is that, comparing two populations, more people w/ on average less happiness is better as long as the sum of happiness over everyone is larger
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
3/n Leaving aside how you define happiness, isn’t this just illogical (like, philosophy is considering situations the laws of human nature don’t allow us to explore)?
Prikaži ovu nit -
4/n Seems like theorizing about a type of evolution that only selected for broken organisms - just not going to happen pragmatically
Prikaži ovu nit -
5/n Related to an issue I don’t understand in stat physics where people talk about the full state space but not trajectories that could just be totally inaccessible given some starting point
Prikaži ovu nit -
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Premise 1: 10 people with 5 utils each < 10 people with 5 utils each + 10 people with 1 util each (how can adding new people be bad?) Premise 2: 10 5-util people + 10 1-util people < 20 3-util people (egalitarianism) Conclusion: 10 5-util people < 20 3-util people
-
In premise 2 you can also (slightly) increase the average and dispense with egalitarianism is good (it just needs to be "not bad").
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Think of it as an attempted reductio: if say utilitarianism is such a good algorithm, why does it give these strongly counterintuitive results? (whether or not the comparison is practically relevant)
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This brings up utilitarianism vs deontology. Also when given a choice should we go all in for one persons happiness or medium for both? Thoughts on this?
-
Parfit in the same book also criticises the idea of personal identity (ie that people are no more than a collection of experiences over time), so he would probably be indifferent
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.