True. There are people who do prefer the conclusion that has been described as repugnant, though. Me, for instance.
-
-
Replying to @ModelOfTheory
@VesselOfSpirit Pref u. implies counter to the repug c.: don't add to a coalition unless it makes current members better off.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
In fact I learned that one from you. I'm wondering why you'd endorse the repugnant conclusion.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic @VesselOfSpirit
Sounds like something I would have said, but I don't remember mentioning it to you. Which of us was "you"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Anyway, I endorse repugnant conclusion with respect to selfish preferences,
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
what is the repugnant conclusion wrt selfish preferences?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
exists some N mildly net-preference-fulfilled ppl better than 7 billion super fulfilled people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @ReferentOfSelf and
though what does zero preference fulfillment even mean
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
level of well-being at which being brought into existence is net neutral (w.r.t. total prefs).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
ok so in my thinking that has to do with the threat point (as in Nash bargaining)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
ie it has to do with how they interact with the coalition, not with a fixed zero point
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.