This doesn’t answer my question. And in any case, I think associating words like “friendship, love, autonomy” with elements of a toy model is wrong, for it’s not analogous. You even go on playing on the metaphor, which could only have literary merit and no basis in your toy model:
Now define V as U, except we forgot the autonomy term. This will result in a terrible world, without autonomy or independence, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth
I think associating words like “friendship, love, autonomy” with elements of a toy model is wrong
Well, sure. All models are wrong. But models which are so constricted are likely to be more wrong than others. If someone tries to explain a math problem with “Suppose you have two apples, and someone gives you two more apples”, then it’s not always helpful to insist that they tell you how ripe each of the apples is, or what trees they were picked from.
If you’re trying to make the point that something about the very concept of a multicomponent utility function is self-contradictory, then you should say so more plainly. If you just don’t like some of these examples of components, then make your own preferred substitutions and see if his thesis starts to make sense.
And on that last point: “It doesn’t make sense to me” does not imply “it doesn’t make sense”. “I don’t understand your model, could you explain a few things” would have been more polite and less inaccurate than “could have only literary merit and no basis”.
This doesn’t answer my question. And in any case, I think associating words like “friendship, love, autonomy” with elements of a toy model is wrong, for it’s not analogous. You even go on playing on the metaphor, which could only have literary merit and no basis in your toy model:
Well, sure. All models are wrong. But models which are so constricted are likely to be more wrong than others. If someone tries to explain a math problem with “Suppose you have two apples, and someone gives you two more apples”, then it’s not always helpful to insist that they tell you how ripe each of the apples is, or what trees they were picked from.
If you’re trying to make the point that something about the very concept of a multicomponent utility function is self-contradictory, then you should say so more plainly. If you just don’t like some of these examples of components, then make your own preferred substitutions and see if his thesis starts to make sense.
And on that last point: “It doesn’t make sense to me” does not imply “it doesn’t make sense”. “I don’t understand your model, could you explain a few things” would have been more polite and less inaccurate than “could have only literary merit and no basis”.