3 ms·

1. Yes, you are. Maybe point two will help see why. 2. You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Real world defi

1. Yes, you are. Maybe point two will help see why. 2. You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Real world definitions will inherently use a value hierarchy. This is where the conflation comes in. 3. Mostly agree, which is why I said real world execution will vary depending on the value system of the population in question. The vast majority of Americans have a fairly similar idea of individual liberty as a general idea/platitude. But again, the value system hierarchy will produce different real world definitions in different scenarios. In order to go from platitude to real world application you have to invoke your value system hierarchy. Which side of any given issue you fall on depends greatly on that hierarchy. 4. See below. 5. I think we're getting caught up in semantics and don't actually disagree on this point. What is shared by the two parties is they each have the same goal: Happiness for themselves. Bob's happiness may conflict with Alice's because of how they are trying to achieve it, but again, they need to talk and sort out why this is happening so that they can get on the optimal path. I think when you say "goal" you are including the means to achieve happiness. I am not. I am simply talking about the pure emotional state. Get more conservatives on campus and we can figure out more ways of achieving happiness that are mutually compatible.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Yes, you can. In fact, you can't have a value prioritization unless you can first define the things you are prioritizing, so this is precisely backwards. And even if you were right, it wouldn't support—or even have any bearing on—your claim about confusing “values with real world policy execution”. > Bob's happiness may conflict with Alice's because of how they are trying to achieve it No. I mean, sure, that's possible, too, but beside the point. The point is Bob’s happiness may inherently conflict with Alice’s; for an extreme example, Bob may derive happiness directly from Alice’s unhappiness. (More commonly, Bob’s happiness may defend on conditions which produce unhappiness for Alice.) > I think when you say "goal" you are including the means to achieve happiness No, I'm not. I'm talking about what in economics might be described as each individual’s personal utility function; the mapping from condition of the universe to the resulting happiness of the individual.
- JoHawth31 8y ago
  1. Many values (about 60%) are determined biologically, there is no definition process. This is not a computer algorithm, I’m talking about how the human brain works, how people work. The brain makes decisions in part by invoking the biologically determined value hierarchy. There is no definition process before this happens. Your subconscious does this without you even knowing it. It has a huge impact. People can’t get to policy without going through their value system. Don’t conflate the two. The definitions you want to create are a language model of what is already there. 2. This is theoretically possible but not at all how most people in the real world function. Not a material impact here. If you believe many people’s happiness depends on many others unhappiness that is classic zero sum thinking. 3. Cool, so we weren’t talking about the same thing, hence the disagreement.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Yes, you can. In fact, you can't have a value prioritization unless you can first define the things you are prioritizing, so this is precisely backwards. And even if you were right, it wouldn't support—or even have any bearing on—your claim about confusing “values with real world policy execution”. > Bob's happiness may conflict with Alice's because of how they are trying to achieve it No. I mean, sure, that's possible, too, but beside the point. The point is Bob’s happiness may inherently conflict with Alice’s; for an extreme example, Bob may derive happiness directly from Alice’s unhappiness. (More commonly, Bob’s happiness may defend on conditions which produce unhappiness for Alice.) > I think when you say "goal" you are including the means to achieve happiness No, I'm not. I'm talking about what in economics might be described as each individual’s personal utility function; the mapping from condition of the universe to the resulting happiness of the individual.

JoHawth31 8y ago
1. Many values (about 60%) are determined biologically, there is no definition process. This is not a computer algorithm, I’m talking about how the human brain works, how people work. The brain makes decisions in part by invoking the biologically determined value hierarchy. There is no definition process before this happens. Your subconscious does this without you even knowing it. It has a huge impact. People can’t get to policy without going through their value system. Don’t conflate the two. The definitions you want to create are a language model of what is already there. 2. This is theoretically possible but not at all how most people in the real world function. Not a material impact here. If you believe many people’s happiness depends on many others unhappiness that is classic zero sum thinking. 3. Cool, so we weren’t talking about the same thing, hence the disagreement.