4 ms·
>Either way, since utility is unique up to scalling (e.g. Johnny could get as many times of it from a sandwich as Paul does from a near-identical sandwich), at
by Eerie 9y ago
>Either way, since utility is unique up to scalling (e.g. Johnny could get as many times of it from a sandwich as Paul does from a near-identical sandwich), at least in choice theory "worth" is closer to having an "inherent" character than otherwise. Though this is somewhat of a stretch because these kind of comparisons are invalid.
Johnny, who is dying of thirst in the middle of the Sahara desert, would get much more utility from a bottle of water than Paul, who is sitting in a bathtub in his apartment in NY. So what's the worth of the bottle of water?
- tpeo 9y agoIs that what you meant by having to appeal to "soul"? There still doesn't need to be an appeal to anything in material in order to define worth, not anymore than one needs to appeal to something immaterial do define weight in terms of mass. Have the utility of water be proportional to the thirst of the person, where thirst is also a definable physiological state, with "worth" being a scale factor. Thus "worth" would have a uniquely defined value regardless of person or situation. Or at least that's one way to do it.
- nihonde 9y ago"My kingdom for a horse." Valuations 101, by William Shakespeare.