3 ms·

Re: jonathanstrange's reply to my reply Thanks for more comments. You're right you can re-scale things to be (A) 30 minutes VS 10 years (Z) ... at which point,

by yboris 7y ago

Re: jonathanstrange's reply to my reply Thanks for more comments. You're right you can re-scale things to be (A) 30 minutes VS 10 years (Z) ... at which point, why would anyone prefer A > Z ??? Part of the argument relies on this very vague definition of the eventual state of things. Temkin talks about an experience "just above 'barely worth living'" (Life-Z-1) ... and that is _so_ vague, and it means something _so_ different to different people. Given that people in concentration camps chose to continue living rather than kill themselves right away might make someone think "Life-Z-1" sucks, I would take 10 minutes of pleasure over that torture. Meanwhile I'm thinking what is just above 'barely worth living' (Life-Z-2) is just great -- the kind of basic enjoyment you have day to day without too much humor or excitement. Philosophy is hard - I don't mean to poo-poo Temkin, I just never could grasp why transitivity was what he was attacking. As he says (something akin to) "there are several balls we're juggling in the air, and we must drop at least one to make it work" and he chooses to drop transitivity. And I don't see why he chose that 'ball'.

jdmichal 7y ago
I can certainly see a case. Let's make it about money. A is a single payment of $10,000. B is two monthly payments of $5250. Or, in other words, a 5% improvement over A in total payments. C is three monthly payments of $3675. Again, 5% better than B in sum. I could completely see someone doing a pairwise comparison between A and B, and picking B for the 5% increase, because the time difference is not that important. Same again for B and C; it's only one more month for an extra 5%. However, I could also see that same person comparing A and Z and deciding that instantaneous vs a period of two years is not worth the wait.
- humansvsrobots 7y ago
  If a person is wealthy and doesn't need to spend that amount during the entire duration of Z, since they have other wealth to spend, they would likely choose Z for the higher return over the same time period. So only a relative poverty would encourage the person to choose A. Assuming they have unlimited life span. If not and their lifespan is uncertain, then the value of Z is reduced by the chance of not surviving long enough to profit from it. If they can invest A and get a higher return than waiting for Z, then A is a more profitable choice.

by yboris 7y ago

jdmichal 7y ago

I can certainly see a case. Let's make it about money. A is a single payment of $10,000. B is two monthly payments of $5250. Or, in other words, a 5% improvement over A in total payments. C is three monthly payments of $3675. Again, 5% better than B in sum. I could completely see someone doing a pairwise comparison between A and B, and picking B for the 5% increase, because the time difference is not that important. Same again for B and C; it's only one more month for an extra 5%. However, I could also see that same person comparing A and Z and deciding that instantaneous vs a period of two years is not worth the wait.

humansvsrobots 7y ago
If a person is wealthy and doesn't need to spend that amount during the entire duration of Z, since they have other wealth to spend, they would likely choose Z for the higher return over the same time period. So only a relative poverty would encourage the person to choose A. Assuming they have unlimited life span. If not and their lifespan is uncertain, then the value of Z is reduced by the chance of not surviving long enough to profit from it. If they can invest A and get a higher return than waiting for Z, then A is a more profitable choice.