loqi comments on Average utilitarianism must be correct? - Less Wrong

2 Post author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2009 05:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (159)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2009 09:01:32PM *  1 point [-]

The injunction to "maximize expected utility" is entirely capable of incorporating your concerns. It can be "inequality-averse" if you want, simply by making it a concave function of experienced utility

No. I've said this 3 times already, including in the very comment that you are replying to. The utility function is not defined across all possible outcomes. A utility function is defined over a single outcome; it evaluates a single outcome. It can discount inequalities within that outcome. It cannot discount across possible worlds. If it operated across all possible worlds, all you would say is "maximize utility". The fact that you use the word "expected" means "average over all possible outcomes". That is what "expected" means. It is a mathematical term whose meaning is already established.

Comment author: loqi 06 April 2009 09:10:32PM 2 points [-]

You can safely ignore my previous reply, I think I finally see what you're saying. Not sure what to make of it yet, but I was definitely misinterpreting you.