“Whenever you do anything, that which determines your action—whatever it may be—can be called a decision—or utility—function. You are doing something, ergo you have a utility function.” [ ]
I think Phil is confusing the economist’s (descriptive) utility function, with the VNM-ethicist’s (prescriptive) utility function. Come to think of it, a case could be made that the VNM-utilitarian is similarly confused.
By VNM-utilitarianism I mean the moral theories that one should act to maximize a utility function. Around here this is sometimes called “consequentialism” or simply “utilitarianism”. Unfortunately, both terms are ambiguous. It’s possible to have consequentialist theories that aren’t based on a utility function, and “utilitarianism” is also used to mean the theory with the specific utility function of total happiness. Thus, I’ve taken to using “VNM-utilitarianism” as a hopefully less ambiguous and self-explanatory term.
As for what I think of VNM-utilitarianism this comment gives a brief summery.
By VHM-utilitarianism I mean the moral theories that one should act to maximize a utility function. Around here this is sometimes called “consequentialism” or simply “utilitarianism”.
When it is called ‘utilitarianism’ there are other people who call it wrong. I recommend saying consequentialism to avoid confusion. Mind you, I don’t even know what you mean by those letters (VHM). My best guess is that you mean the Von Neumann Morgenstern utility theorem but got the letters wrong.
If you are referring to those axioms then you could also consider saying VNM-utility instead of VNM-utilitarianism. Because those words have meanings that are far more different than their etymology might suggest to you.
My best guess is that you mean the Von Neumann Morgenstern utility theorem but got the letters wrong.
Oops. Fixed.
If you are referring to those axioms then you could also consider saying VNM-utility instead of VNM-utilitarianism. Because those words have meanings that are far more different than their etymology might suggest to you.
That’s why I talk about “VNM-utilitarianism” rather than simply “utilitarianism”.
That’s why I talk about “VNM-utilitarianism” rather than simply “utilitarianism”.
That isn’t enough to disambiguate the meaning. In fact, your intended meaning is not even one of the options to disambiguate between. Your usage is still wrong and misleading. I suggest following nshepperd’s advice and using “VNM-rational” or “VNM-ratinality”.
(Obviously I will be downvoting all comments that persist with “VNM-utilitarianism”. Many others will not downvote but will take your muddled terminology to be strong evidence that you are confused or ill-informed about the subject matter.)
That isn’t enough to disambiguate the meaning. In fact, your intended meaning is not even one of the options to disambiguate between.
Utilitarianism in practice means some kind of aggregation of all people’s preferences. Most typically either ‘total’ or ‘average’. Even though I am a consequentialist (at least in a highly abstract combatibilist sense) I dismiss utilitarianism as stupid, arbitrary and not worth priveleging as a moral hypothesis. Adding VNM to it effectively narrows it down to ‘preference utilitarianism’ which at least gets rid of the worst of the crazy (‘hedonic utilitarianism’ Gahh!). But I don’t think that is what you are trying to refer to when you challenge VNM-X (because it wouldn’t be compatible with the points you make).
How about “VNM-consequentialism”?
Perfect! Please do. ‘Consequentialism’ means what one would naively expect ‘utilitarianism’ to mean, if not for an unfortunate history of bad philosophy having defined the term already. The VNM qualifier then narrows consequentialism down to the typical case that we tend to mean around here (because you are right, technically consequentialism is more broad than just that based on VNM axioms.)
I believe “VNM-utilitarianism” is problematic because it would suggest that it is a kind of utilitarianism. By the most usual definition of “utilitarianism” (a moral theory involving an ‘objective’ aggregative measure of value + utility-maximising decision theory) it is not.
However, I remember “VNM-rational” and “VNM-rationality” being accepted terminology.
No, I don’t think it’s just descriptive vs prescriptive, I mentioned both in my post and asserted that we had neither. Phil is saying that we do have a decision algorithm (I agree), and further, that “utility function” means “decision algorithm” (which I disagree with, but I’m not one to argue terminology.
Economists frequently assume humans have utility functions as part of their spherical cow model of human behavior. Unfortunately, they sometimes forget that this is just a spherical cow model, especially once one gets away from modeling collective economic behavior.
As far as I can tell, you aren’t making any argument for your position that we have utility functions. You are merely asserting it.
“Whenever you do anything, that which determines your action—whatever it may be—can be called a decision—or utility—function. You are doing something, ergo you have a utility function.” [ ]
I have never seen “utility function” used like this in any technical discussion. Am I missing something?
I think Phil is confusing the economist’s (descriptive) utility function, with the VNM-ethicist’s (prescriptive) utility function. Come to think of it, a case could be made that the VNM-utilitarian is similarly confused.
Care to expand on what you mean by VNM-utilitarian? You refer to it a lot and I’m never quite sure what you mean.
(I’m also interested in what you think of it).
By VNM-utilitarianism I mean the moral theories that one should act to maximize a utility function. Around here this is sometimes called “consequentialism” or simply “utilitarianism”. Unfortunately, both terms are ambiguous. It’s possible to have consequentialist theories that aren’t based on a utility function, and “utilitarianism” is also used to mean the theory with the specific utility function of total happiness. Thus, I’ve taken to using “VNM-utilitarianism” as a hopefully less ambiguous and self-explanatory term.
As for what I think of VNM-utilitarianism this comment gives a brief summery.
When it is called ‘utilitarianism’ there are other people who call it wrong. I recommend saying consequentialism to avoid confusion. Mind you, I don’t even know what you mean by those letters (VHM). My best guess is that you mean the Von Neumann Morgenstern utility theorem but got the letters wrong.
If you are referring to those axioms then you could also consider saying VNM-utility instead of VNM-utilitarianism. Because those words have meanings that are far more different than their etymology might suggest to you.
Oops. Fixed.
That’s why I talk about “VNM-utilitarianism” rather than simply “utilitarianism”.
That isn’t enough to disambiguate the meaning. In fact, your intended meaning is not even one of the options to disambiguate between. Your usage is still wrong and misleading. I suggest following nshepperd’s advice and using “VNM-rational” or “VNM-ratinality”.
(Obviously I will be downvoting all comments that persist with “VNM-utilitarianism”. Many others will not downvote but will take your muddled terminology to be strong evidence that you are confused or ill-informed about the subject matter.)
I’m curious, what were the options for what you thought it meant.
How about “VNM-consequentialism”?
Utilitarianism in practice means some kind of aggregation of all people’s preferences. Most typically either ‘total’ or ‘average’. Even though I am a consequentialist (at least in a highly abstract combatibilist sense) I dismiss utilitarianism as stupid, arbitrary and not worth priveleging as a moral hypothesis. Adding VNM to it effectively narrows it down to ‘preference utilitarianism’ which at least gets rid of the worst of the crazy (‘hedonic utilitarianism’ Gahh!). But I don’t think that is what you are trying to refer to when you challenge VNM-X (because it wouldn’t be compatible with the points you make).
Perfect! Please do. ‘Consequentialism’ means what one would naively expect ‘utilitarianism’ to mean, if not for an unfortunate history of bad philosophy having defined the term already. The VNM qualifier then narrows consequentialism down to the typical case that we tend to mean around here (because you are right, technically consequentialism is more broad than just that based on VNM axioms.)
I believe “VNM-utilitarianism” is problematic because it would suggest that it is a kind of utilitarianism. By the most usual definition of “utilitarianism” (a moral theory involving an ‘objective’ aggregative measure of value + utility-maximising decision theory) it is not.
However, I remember “VNM-rational” and “VNM-rationality” being accepted terminology.
No, I don’t think it’s just descriptive vs prescriptive, I mentioned both in my post and asserted that we had neither. Phil is saying that we do have a decision algorithm (I agree), and further, that “utility function” means “decision algorithm” (which I disagree with, but I’m not one to argue terminology.
Economists frequently assume humans have utility functions as part of their spherical cow model of human behavior. Unfortunately, they sometimes forget that this is just a spherical cow model, especially once one gets away from modeling collective economic behavior.