Conceiving and raising a child costs hundreds of thousands of dollars; that money would be far better spent on famine relief
Only if you’re operating under a utility function that assigns an equal value to all people, or at least the value of one person’s well-being is not significantly different from another’s. If you reject this premise (as I do), it’s not necessarily true that the money would be better spent on famine relief. Perhaps I could donate $200 to a charity that would buy food for starving people, or I could use it to buy a Nintendo 3DS for my girlfriend, or for myself. I value my girlfriend (and myself) much more highly than I value the well-being of strangers, so I see nothing wrong with spending that money on a person I value more highly.
The same goes for raising a child. Presumably, I would value my child’s well-being much more highly than the lives of strangers, and value the fulfillment of having a child similarly.
All of these “what you should do if you are a utilitarian” articles should start with “Assuming you are a being for whom utility matters roughly equally regardless of who experiences it...”
That assumption is part of what “utilitarian” usually means. In particular, “utilitarian” does not mean the same thing as “entity that tries to maximize some utility function”.
All of these “what you should do if you are a utilitarian” articles should start with “Assuming you are a being for whom utility matters roughly equally regardless of who experiences it...”
Yes! Thank you for articulating in one sentence what I haven’t been able to in a dozen posts.
I think “utilitarian” has picked up too many different meanings for us to use the word without saying which meaning we mean. I see people using it in (at least) 5 different senses.
Someone who prioritizes function over form, which might be the most common lay definition. (See e.g. Wiktionary defining “utilitarian” as an adjective meaning “practical and functional, not just for show”.)
Someone trying to maximize a utility function or welfare function, whatever that function’s form. (I mentally call this “utilityfunctionarianism” to distinguish it from the other meanings.)
Someone trying to maximize an additively separable utility function or welfare function, i.e. someone who defines social utility as a weighted sum or average of each person’s utility. (Ken Binmore uses this definition in his Game Theory and the Social Contract and says it’s a “not uncommon definition”.)
Someone trying to maximize an unweighted sum or average of each person’s utility, i.e. an egalitarian utility maximizer. (Which seems to be the meaning being used here, and sometimes elsewhere on LW, e.g. here.)
A Benthamite, which (I think?) is close to meaning 4, but with “utility” operationalized as “happiness”.
“Well being” is nebulous enough, but without specifying the relative weighting, it means very little, particularly with the “weight everyone equally” variant finding such strong support, and being so at odds with what people actually do.
Only if you’re operating under a utility function that assigns an equal value to all people, or at least the value of one person’s well-being is not significantly different from another’s. If you reject this premise (as I do), it’s not necessarily true that the money would be better spent on famine relief. Perhaps I could donate $200 to a charity that would buy food for starving people, or I could use it to buy a Nintendo 3DS for my girlfriend, or for myself. I value my girlfriend (and myself) much more highly than I value the well-being of strangers, so I see nothing wrong with spending that money on a person I value more highly.
The same goes for raising a child. Presumably, I would value my child’s well-being much more highly than the lives of strangers, and value the fulfillment of having a child similarly.
All of these “what you should do if you are a utilitarian” articles should start with “Assuming you are a being for whom utility matters roughly equally regardless of who experiences it...”
That assumption is part of what “utilitarian” usually means. In particular, “utilitarian” does not mean the same thing as “entity that tries to maximize some utility function”.
Yes! Thank you for articulating in one sentence what I haven’t been able to in a dozen posts.
Isn’t that what “utilitarian” means?
I think “utilitarian” has picked up too many different meanings for us to use the word without saying which meaning we mean. I see people using it in (at least) 5 different senses.
Someone who prioritizes function over form, which might be the most common lay definition. (See e.g. Wiktionary defining “utilitarian” as an adjective meaning “practical and functional, not just for show”.)
Someone trying to maximize a utility function or welfare function, whatever that function’s form. (I mentally call this “utilityfunctionarianism” to distinguish it from the other meanings.)
Someone trying to maximize an additively separable utility function or welfare function, i.e. someone who defines social utility as a weighted sum or average of each person’s utility. (Ken Binmore uses this definition in his Game Theory and the Social Contract and says it’s a “not uncommon definition”.)
Someone trying to maximize an unweighted sum or average of each person’s utility, i.e. an egalitarian utility maximizer. (Which seems to be the meaning being used here, and sometimes elsewhere on LW, e.g. here.)
A Benthamite, which (I think?) is close to meaning 4, but with “utility” operationalized as “happiness”.
So it’s a fuzzy term.
An argument elsewhere on LW reminds me of a 6th meaning for “utilitarian”: a synonym for “consequentialist”.
Yeah, this is the winner.
“Well being” is nebulous enough, but without specifying the relative weighting, it means very little, particularly with the “weight everyone equally” variant finding such strong support, and being so at odds with what people actually do.