Good point, i may have overstated the issue that utilitarianism runs into with this problem. They’re definitely not stuck, they can achieve a trade off or even a 3rd option that satisfied both outcomes. But i think the more salient issue with it in this case is that utilitarianism is not structured to allow optimal problem solving of these issues. It simplifies cause and effect both into the same metric of utility, which obfuscates the conflict, whereas this system places the conflict between the contrasting desires front and center.
From a utilitarian standpoint this specific problem is a matter of +X utility short term vs +Y utility long term, and once you solve for X and Y you chose the larger number. But that may not be the optimal solution if you can instead eat a non-fat candy bar and solve both problems at once. Both systems can achieve the same outcome, but in utilitarianism it’s harder to see the path.
metalcrow
Karma: 9
Hello! I’m dipping my toes into this forum, coming primarily from the Scott Alexander side of rationalism. Wanted to introduce myself, and share that i’m working on a post about ethics/ethical frameworks i hope to share here eventually!
Thank you! I knew there had to have been similar ideas like this previously discussed, glad to see this! It even agrees with my conclusion on how it solves wireheading, and brings up a problem called “desire fulfillment act utilitarianism” that is a problem utilitarianism has that carries over to this.