conchis comments on My main problem with utilitarianism - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: taw 17 April 2009 08:26PM

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

Comments (84)

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

Comment author: conchis 18 April 2009 04:43:55PM *  3 points [-]

One of the things that currently frustrates me most about this site is the confusion that seems to surround the use of words like value, preference, happiness, and utility. Unfortunately, these words do not have settled, consistent meanings, even within literatures that utilize them extensively (economics is a great example of this; philosophy tends to be better, though still not perfect). Nor does it seem likely that we will be able to collectively settle on consistent usages across the community. (Indeed, some flexibility may even be useful.)

Given that, can we please stop insisting that others' statements are wrong/nonsensical/tautological etc. simply on the basis that they aren't using our own preferred definitions. If something seems not to make sense to you, consider extending some interpretative charity by (a) considering whether it might make sense given alternative definitions; and/or (b) asking for clarification, before engaging in potentially misguided criticisms.

EDIT: By way of example here, many people would claim that things can be valuable, independently of whether anyone has a preference for them. You may not think such a view is defensible, but it's not obviously gibberish, and if you want to argue against it, you'll need more than a definitional fiat.

Comment author: timtyler 18 April 2009 06:59:21PM 0 points [-]

Whoa! Hold your horses! I started out by saying: "I don't know what you are trying to say." Clarify definitions away - if that is the problem - which seems rather unlikely.

Comment author: conchis 18 April 2009 08:04:08PM -1 points [-]

Saying that preferences are values is tautological...

seemed more like an assertion than an attempt to seek clarification, but I apologize if I misinterpreted your intention.

The EDIT was supposed to be an attempt to clarify. Does the claim I made there make sense to you?

Comment author: timtyler 18 April 2009 09:23:13PM 0 points [-]

FWIW, to my way of thinking, we can talk about hypothetical preferences just about as easily as hypothetical values.

Comment author: conchis 18 April 2009 09:38:45PM 0 points [-]

I'm afraid that I don't understand the relevance of this to the discussion. Could you expand?