1. one well known ea person wrote a paper which i interpreted as saying if we want to reduce or end wild animal suffering the best thing to do would not be to protect their habitats --unless they benefit humans ---but rather just wipe them out--put them out of their misery as uncivilized brutes. they have no hope of ever getting tenure at oxford.
total utility (and/or average depending on how you calculate it----eg additivity vs mulitiplicativity/nonlinearity) would increase by say, turning all national parks into dumps, mining and drilling areas, and shopping malls loaded with fun things to buy.
2. alot of economists i think have been pretty slack when dealing with 'utility functions'.
eg some still seem to view it as a zero sum game. 1 billionaire= 1 billion people with 1 $.
3. i dont think sentience has ever been proven. in quantum theory schrodinger did discuss whether electrons had minds. some ask if numbers have feelings. in my theory some special ones do.
qualia i think on the other hand have been isolated as well as synthesized in some labs and are sold in stores.
4. ea people do seem to permit free speech, but also seem to endorse the view that they don't have to listen to speech they don't want to hear .
to biologists, altruism doesn't really exist except in people's minds.
while violence reduction seems optimal and common sense, humans love war movies, etc. and these provide some well paying jobs.
> However, Rawls borrowed this concept from previous thinkers, including philosopher Immanuel Kant and economist John Harsanyi.
I think the credit should maybe go more to Hume than Kant since, imo, the original position is a reformulation of the ideal observer theory.
> In general, each person will want to maximize the total utility
Pursuing expected total utility leads to problems such as 'the repugnant conclusion' and 'the wagering calamity objection': https://bobjacobs.substack.com/p/the-wagering-calamity-objection-to?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
comments:
1. one well known ea person wrote a paper which i interpreted as saying if we want to reduce or end wild animal suffering the best thing to do would not be to protect their habitats --unless they benefit humans ---but rather just wipe them out--put them out of their misery as uncivilized brutes. they have no hope of ever getting tenure at oxford.
total utility (and/or average depending on how you calculate it----eg additivity vs mulitiplicativity/nonlinearity) would increase by say, turning all national parks into dumps, mining and drilling areas, and shopping malls loaded with fun things to buy.
2. alot of economists i think have been pretty slack when dealing with 'utility functions'.
eg some still seem to view it as a zero sum game. 1 billionaire= 1 billion people with 1 $.
3. i dont think sentience has ever been proven. in quantum theory schrodinger did discuss whether electrons had minds. some ask if numbers have feelings. in my theory some special ones do.
qualia i think on the other hand have been isolated as well as synthesized in some labs and are sold in stores.
4. ea people do seem to permit free speech, but also seem to endorse the view that they don't have to listen to speech they don't want to hear .
to biologists, altruism doesn't really exist except in people's minds.
while violence reduction seems optimal and common sense, humans love war movies, etc. and these provide some well paying jobs.