In what way are hedons anything other than a subset of utilons? Please clarify.
Increasing happiness is a part of human utility, it just isn’t all of it. This post doesn’t really make sense because it is arguing Superset vs Subset.
Hedons won’t be a subset of utilons if we happen not to value all hedons. One might not value hedons that arise out of false beliefs, for example. (From memory, I think Lawrence Sumner is a proponent of a view something like this.)
NB: Even if hedons were simply a subset of utilons, I don’t quite see how that would mean that this post “doesn’t really make sense”.
In what way are hedons anything other than a subset of utilons? Please clarify.
Increasing happiness is a part of human utility, it just isn’t all of it. This post doesn’t really make sense because it is arguing Superset vs Subset.
Hedons won’t be a subset of utilons if we happen not to value all hedons. One might not value hedons that arise out of false beliefs, for example. (From memory, I think Lawrence Sumner is a proponent of a view something like this.)
NB: Even if hedons were simply a subset of utilons, I don’t quite see how that would mean that this post “doesn’t really make sense”.
Ah, I see! Thank you, that helps.
RE:NB Reading hedons as a subset of utilons, phrases like “maximize our hedons at the expense of our utilons” didn’t make sense to me.
The x that maximizes f(x) might not maximize f(x)+g(x).
One need not care about all hedons (or any), or care about them linearly.
What sets? What subsets? You can’t throw concepts like this without clarification and expect them to make sense.