Comments on: The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Significantly irrelevant happiness « Ursnygg ~ Stone Circles http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8416 Significantly irrelevant happiness « Ursnygg ~ Stone Circles Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:09:04 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8416 [...] Wilkinson wrote in “The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number“ Suppose the population is evenly divided between blue people and green people. Green people [...] [...] Wilkinson wrote in “The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number“ Suppose the population is evenly divided between blue people and green people. Green people [...]

]]> By: Significantly irrelevant happiness « Serendipity http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8415 Significantly irrelevant happiness « Serendipity Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:13:07 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8415 [...] Wilkinson wrote in “The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number“ Suppose the population is evenly divided between blue people and green people. Green people [...] [...] Wilkinson wrote in “The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number“ Suppose the population is evenly divided between blue people and green people. Green people [...]

]]> By: Inductive Scenario Logics - Moebius http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8414 Inductive Scenario Logics - Moebius Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:59:21 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8414 [...] Greatest happiness of the greatest number I propose that this maximizing utilitarian interpretation, as influential as it has been, is a wrong... Do the game math in a two or three-tier hierarchy, and see for yourself. No congruent treasure on [...] [...] Greatest happiness of the greatest number I propose that this maximizing utilitarian interpretation, as influential as it has been, is a wrong… Do the game math in a two or three-tier hierarchy, and see for yourself. No congruent treasure on [...]

]]> By: Benjamin Nelson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8413 Benjamin Nelson Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:31:31 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8413 One really must wonder about the supposed "contradiction", here, between distribution and optimization. Try as I might, I cannot find one. I only find a practical dilemma, which is sometimes solvable, sometimes not. In a world of blues and greens, utilitarianism seems like a travesty. But it perhaps, instead of blaming utilitarianism for the preferences of the world, we should blame the blues and the greens for having stupid preferences. One really must wonder about the supposed “contradiction”, here, between distribution and optimization. Try as I might, I cannot find one. I only find a practical dilemma, which is sometimes solvable, sometimes not.

In a world of blues and greens, utilitarianism seems like a travesty. But it perhaps, instead of blaming utilitarianism for the preferences of the world, we should blame the blues and the greens for having stupid preferences.

]]> By: Benjamin Nelson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8426 Benjamin Nelson Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:31:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8426 One really must wonder about the supposed "contradiction", here, between distribution and optimization. Try as I might, I cannot find one. I only find a practical dilemma, which is sometimes solvable, sometimes not. In a world of blues and greens, utilitarianism seems like a travesty. But it perhaps, instead of blaming utilitarianism for the preferences of the world, we should blame the blues and the greens for having stupid preferences. One really must wonder about the supposed “contradiction”, here, between distribution and optimization. Try as I might, I cannot find one. I only find a practical dilemma, which is sometimes solvable, sometimes not.

In a world of blues and greens, utilitarianism seems like a travesty. But it perhaps, instead of blaming utilitarianism for the preferences of the world, we should blame the blues and the greens for having stupid preferences.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8412 Will Wilkinson Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:43:34 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8412 Stuart, Thanks. The von Neumann and Morgenstern passage is great. Of course, it would be a mistake to think that a good moral principle would need to be a strict mathematical function. "Do the best you can for everyone involved" is perfectly intelligible, though no decision rule can ever tell us how to do the balancing when trading one person's welfare against another's. We end up with rules of thumb like "Small losses for big gains are OK," and "Big losses are not OK, no matter how big the gains," and so forth. But no rule for how big big needs to be to force a small loss. Tim, Great quote! Stuart, Thanks. The von Neumann and Morgenstern passage is great. Of course, it would be a mistake to think that a good moral principle would need to be a strict mathematical function. “Do the best you can for everyone involved” is perfectly intelligible, though no decision rule can ever tell us how to do the balancing when trading one person’s welfare against another’s. We end up with rules of thumb like “Small losses for big gains are OK,” and “Big losses are not OK, no matter how big the gains,” and so forth. But no rule for how big big needs to be to force a small loss.

Tim, Great quote!

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8425 Will Wilkinson Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:43:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8425 Stuart, Thanks. The von Neumann and Morgenstern passage is great. Of course, it would be a mistake to think that a good moral principle would need to be a strict mathematical function. "Do the best you can for everyone involved" is perfectly intelligible, though no decision rule can ever tell us how to do the balancing when trading one person's welfare against another's. We end up with rules of thumb like "Small losses for big gains are OK," and "Big losses are not OK, no matter how big the gains," and so forth. But no rule for how big big needs to be to force a small loss. Tim, Great quote! Stuart, Thanks. The von Neumann and Morgenstern passage is great. Of course, it would be a mistake to think that a good moral principle would need to be a strict mathematical function. “Do the best you can for everyone involved” is perfectly intelligible, though no decision rule can ever tell us how to do the balancing when trading one person’s welfare against another’s. We end up with rules of thumb like “Small losses for big gains are OK,” and “Big losses are not OK, no matter how big the gains,” and so forth. But no rule for how big big needs to be to force a small loss.

Tim, Great quote!

]]> By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8411 Timothy Waligore Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:58 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8411 In later editions of The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham added this footnote in the first chapter, when mentioning the principle of utility: "1. Note by the Author, July 1822. To this denomination has of late been added, or substituted, the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at length that principle which states the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action: of human action in every situation, and in particular in that of a functionary or set of functionaries exercising the powers of Government. The word utility does not so clearly point to the ideas of pleasure and pain as the words happiness and felicity do: nor does it lead us to the consideration of the number, of the interests affected; to the number, as being the circumstance, which contributes, in the largest proportion, to the formation of the standard here in question; the standard of right and wrong, by which alone the propriety of human conduct, in every situation, can with propriety be tried. This want of a sufficiently manifest connexion between the ideas of happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and the idea of utility on the other, I have every now and then found operating, and with but too much efficiency, as a bar to the acceptance, that might otherwise have been given, to this principle. " In later editions of The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham added this footnote in the first chapter, when mentioning the principle of utility:

“1. Note by the Author, July 1822.
To this denomination has of late been added, or substituted, the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at length that principle which states the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action: of human action in every situation, and in particular in that of a functionary or set of functionaries exercising the powers of Government. The word utility does not so clearly point to the ideas of pleasure and pain as the words happiness and felicity do: nor does it lead us to the consideration of the number, of the interests affected; to the number, as being the circumstance, which contributes, in the largest proportion, to the formation of the standard here in question; the standard of right and wrong, by which alone the propriety of human conduct, in every situation, can with propriety be tried. This want of a sufficiently manifest connexion between the ideas of happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and the idea of utility on the other, I have every now and then found operating, and with but too much efficiency, as a bar to the acceptance, that might otherwise have been given, to this principle. “

]]> By: Timothy Waligore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8424 Timothy Waligore Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8424 In later editions of The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham added this footnote in the first chapter, when mentioning the principle of utility: "1. Note by the Author, July 1822. To this denomination has of late been added, or substituted, the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at length that principle which states the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action: of human action in every situation, and in particular in that of a functionary or set of functionaries exercising the powers of Government. The word utility does not so clearly point to the ideas of pleasure and pain as the words happiness and felicity do: nor does it lead us to the consideration of the number, of the interests affected; to the number, as being the circumstance, which contributes, in the largest proportion, to the formation of the standard here in question; the standard of right and wrong, by which alone the propriety of human conduct, in every situation, can with propriety be tried. This want of a sufficiently manifest connexion between the ideas of happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and the idea of utility on the other, I have every now and then found operating, and with but too much efficiency, as a bar to the acceptance, that might otherwise have been given, to this principle. " In later editions of The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham added this footnote in the first chapter, when mentioning the principle of utility:

“1. Note by the Author, July 1822.
To this denomination has of late been added, or substituted, the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at length that principle which states the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action: of human action in every situation, and in particular in that of a functionary or set of functionaries exercising the powers of Government. The word utility does not so clearly point to the ideas of pleasure and pain as the words happiness and felicity do: nor does it lead us to the consideration of the number, of the interests affected; to the number, as being the circumstance, which contributes, in the largest proportion, to the formation of the standard here in question; the standard of right and wrong, by which alone the propriety of human conduct, in every situation, can with propriety be tried. This want of a sufficiently manifest connexion between the ideas of happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and the idea of utility on the other, I have every now and then found operating, and with but too much efficiency, as a bar to the acceptance, that might otherwise have been given, to this principle. “

]]> By: Stuart Buck http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8410 Stuart Buck Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:33:42 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8410 As I <a href="http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003/11/greatest-good-for-greatest-number.html" rel="nofollow">pointed out in 2003</a>, von Neumann and Morgenstern made a similar argument in their classic work on game theory. As I pointed out in 2003, von Neumann and Morgenstern made a similar argument in their classic work on game theory.

]]> By: Stuart Buck http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8423 Stuart Buck Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:33:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8423 As I <a href="http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003/11/greatest-good-for-greatest-number.html" rel="nofollow">pointed out in 2003</a>, von Neumann and Morgenstern made a similar argument in their classic work on game theory. As I pointed out in 2003, von Neumann and Morgenstern made a similar argument in their classic work on game theory.

]]> By: catquas http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8409 catquas Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:56:25 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8409 I agree that maximization of happiness is possible, I just think it doesn't make sense to maximize the number of people who are happy. Sure, you could theoretically make a line between happiness and sadness, but I think it would be arbitrary. People might say they are neither sad nor happy, but this might encompass a whole range of feelings. Different people might say this at different points. I think feelings are to complex to set a zero point like that. I agree that maximization of happiness is possible, I just think it doesn’t make sense to maximize the number of people who are happy. Sure, you could theoretically make a line between happiness and sadness, but I think it would be arbitrary. People might say they are neither sad nor happy, but this might encompass a whole range of feelings. Different people might say this at different points. I think feelings are to complex to set a zero point like that.

]]> By: catquas http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8422 catquas Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:56:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8422 I agree that maximization of happiness is possible, I just think it doesn't make sense to maximize the number of people who are happy. Sure, you could theoretically make a line between happiness and sadness, but I think it would be arbitrary. People might say they are neither sad nor happy, but this might encompass a whole range of feelings. Different people might say this at different points. I think feelings are to complex to set a zero point like that. I agree that maximization of happiness is possible, I just think it doesn’t make sense to maximize the number of people who are happy. Sure, you could theoretically make a line between happiness and sadness, but I think it would be arbitrary. People might say they are neither sad nor happy, but this might encompass a whole range of feelings. Different people might say this at different points. I think feelings are to complex to set a zero point like that.

]]> By: Matti Linnanvuori http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8408 Matti Linnanvuori Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:32:07 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8408 People are able to rate feelings in order of preference and even able to mention that they neither sad nor happy, so it not impossible to construct a line between happiness and misery and to set a zero. Happiness and misery being matters of degree does not invalidate maximization of happiness. People are able to rate feelings in order of preference and even able to mention that they neither sad nor happy, so it not impossible to construct a line between happiness and misery and to set a zero. Happiness and misery being matters of degree does not invalidate maximization of happiness.

]]> By: Matti Linnanvuori http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8421 Matti Linnanvuori Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:32:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/06/05/the-greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number/#comment-8421 People are able to rate feelings in order of preference and even able to mention that they neither sad nor happy, so it not impossible to construct a line between happiness and misery and to set a zero. Happiness and misery being matters of degree does not invalidate maximization of happiness. People are able to rate feelings in order of preference and even able to mention that they neither sad nor happy, so it not impossible to construct a line between happiness and misery and to set a zero. Happiness and misery being matters of degree does not invalidate maximization of happiness.

]]>