5 ms·

I agree that you can't necessarily add up utilities over multiple individuals, but you can naturally claim that a "good" individual utility takes into account t

I agree that you can't necessarily add up utilities over multiple individuals, but you can naturally claim that a "good" individual utility takes into account the well being of others, and if the utility of each action is unique you may say there's a composing function g such that your utility u(a=action,t1=actor 1) is also a function of the utility for other people u(a,t1)=f(a,g(u(a,t2),...,u(a,tN))). I also think utility can makes sense when there's a set of actors looking forward to make a set of decisions. Again, this set of decisions is going to be unique. So if those actors are able to 1) achieve consensus on a utility 2) coordinate their actions according to said utility, then it also makes sense to talk in terms of a joint utility theory.

pdonis 11y ago
> you can naturally claim that a "good" individual utility takes into account the well being of others That's not the same as utilities of multiple individuals adding, or otherwise being composed into a single utility function. The "good" individual's utility function can certainly depend on that individual's beliefs about how his actions will affect the well-being of others; but it can't depend on the actual utility of those others, because the "good" individual doesn't know the actual utility to others of various states of the world. > if those actors are able to 1) achieve consensus on a utility 2) coordinate their actions according to said utility, then it also makes sense to talk in terms of a joint utility theory. I agree with this, but I think the necessary conditions for it are very rare. In most cases of collective action, the actors do not have consensus on a utility function and do not coordinate their actions according to a single utility function. In fact, in most cases the actors probably do not even share a common or compatible set of beliefs about factual things. In US politics, for example, you have members of Congress who are young earth creationists alongside other members who believe standard evolutionary theory.

pdonis 11y ago

> you can naturally claim that a "good" individual utility takes into account the well being of others That's not the same as utilities of multiple individuals adding, or otherwise being composed into a single utility function. The "good" individual's utility function can certainly depend on that individual's beliefs about how his actions will affect the well-being of others; but it can't depend on the actual utility of those others, because the "good" individual doesn't know the actual utility to others of various states of the world. > if those actors are able to 1) achieve consensus on a utility 2) coordinate their actions according to said utility, then it also makes sense to talk in terms of a joint utility theory. I agree with this, but I think the necessary conditions for it are very rare. In most cases of collective action, the actors do not have consensus on a utility function and do not coordinate their actions according to a single utility function. In fact, in most cases the actors probably do not even share a common or compatible set of beliefs about factual things. In US politics, for example, you have members of Congress who are young earth creationists alongside other members who believe standard evolutionary theory.