Fairness is a higher-order value—it only kicks in if you arleady have agents with conflicting object-level values. Maybe the problem is that there is an infinite stack of possible meta-levels on top of any UF.
Games can have multiple Nash equilibria, but agents still need to do something. The way they are able to do something is that they care about something other than what is strictly written into their utility function so far. So the existence of a meta-level on top of any possible level is a solution to the problem of indeterminacy of what action to take.
(Sorry about my cryptic remark earlier, I was in an odd mood)
Fairness is a higher-order value—it only kicks in if you arleady have agents with conflicting object-level values. Maybe the problem is that there is an infinite stack of possible meta-levels on top of any UF.
It is not the problem, but the solution.
The solution to what?
Games can have multiple Nash equilibria, but agents still need to do something. The way they are able to do something is that they care about something other than what is strictly written into their utility function so far. So the existence of a meta-level on top of any possible level is a solution to the problem of indeterminacy of what action to take.
(Sorry about my cryptic remark earlier, I was in an odd mood)