Well, the obvious objection is that clearly not everybody’s going to do what you do, so your hypothetical scenario is often going to be irrelevant. Furthermore, I’d think that
“If everyone here always smoked, they’d install a powerful ventilation system, so I’d be okay”
is exactly what you should think. Of course, you should factor in the cost of the ventilation system, but that those costs exist isn’t any reason to assume that the marginal change in utility you effect by your actions is going to stay constant when multiplied by seven billion.
I’ve just noticed that I’m confused, and that’s because your comments on the second error seem to be saying that you should shut up and sum utilities, which kind of renders your comments on the first (and my reply) obsolete. Oh well.
I’ll just point out that if you could measure utilities well enough to actually shut up and multiply, you wouldn’t need this kind of heuristic.
Also, this heuristic fails miserably in the face of any kind of conflict. Of course unilateral disarmament works if everybody does it at the same time. While I understand that your heuristic isn’t supposed to be used in such cases, you’ll find actual situations without underlying conflicts are rather difficult to find.
Finally, your grammar is mostly fine and certainly no significant obstacle to communication.
When you can multiply you don’t need this or any other heuristic. You just do that. This method is a method of adding utility using System 1 instead of System 2 thinking, as you don’t round small disutilities to other people down to zero. Often if some action gives a good utility calculation in a separate case but doesn’t generalize, it may be not a good idea because of small disutilities it creates. And the technique I’m talking about is mostly useful when it’s difficult to put a number on the utilities in question. It’s similar to collecting all the losses and gains it gives to other people and applying them all to the person using the calculation. When it’s possible, the heuristic works, when it’s not possible, this method usually fails.
You can put numbers on utilities when it’s about lives or QALYs. A lot of important questions are this. The generalization method on the other hand may help when dealing with some more… trivial matters. Hurt feelings, minor inconveniences and so on. Less important, sure, but still quite common, I believe.
It fails in at least some conflicts, good catch. I’d have to think when it does and when it doesn’t and maybe update the post.
Well, the obvious objection is that clearly not everybody’s going to do what you do, so your hypothetical scenario is often going to be irrelevant. Furthermore, I’d think that
I’ve just noticed that I’m confused, and that’s because your comments on the second error seem to be saying that you should shut up and sum utilities, which kind of renders your comments on the first (and my reply) obsolete. Oh well.
I’ll just point out that if you could measure utilities well enough to actually shut up and multiply, you wouldn’t need this kind of heuristic.
Also, this heuristic fails miserably in the face of any kind of conflict. Of course unilateral disarmament works if everybody does it at the same time. While I understand that your heuristic isn’t supposed to be used in such cases, you’ll find actual situations without underlying conflicts are rather difficult to find.
Finally, your grammar is mostly fine and certainly no significant obstacle to communication.
When you can multiply you don’t need this or any other heuristic. You just do that. This method is a method of adding utility using System 1 instead of System 2 thinking, as you don’t round small disutilities to other people down to zero. Often if some action gives a good utility calculation in a separate case but doesn’t generalize, it may be not a good idea because of small disutilities it creates. And the technique I’m talking about is mostly useful when it’s difficult to put a number on the utilities in question. It’s similar to collecting all the losses and gains it gives to other people and applying them all to the person using the calculation. When it’s possible, the heuristic works, when it’s not possible, this method usually fails.
You can put numbers on utilities when it’s about lives or QALYs. A lot of important questions are this. The generalization method on the other hand may help when dealing with some more… trivial matters. Hurt feelings, minor inconveniences and so on. Less important, sure, but still quite common, I believe.
It fails in at least some conflicts, good catch. I’d have to think when it does and when it doesn’t and maybe update the post.