3 ms·

> The burden of proof [for its existance] is on those making up those "fundamental concepts in decision theory". I won't be taking it for granted just because t

> The burden of proof [for its existance] is on those making up those "fundamental concepts in decision theory". I won't be taking it for granted just because they came up with it. What? It's trivial. People want things. Things that satisfy wants have utility. You can just look this up. It's pretty basic to modern economics and philosophy.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility

samhw 5y ago
You're just defining satisfaction of wants as utility. "Things that satisfy wants have utility" is a statement of a definition, not a synthetic claim. There are plenty of measures of utility other than hedonic ones (or volitional ones, or whatever exactly your definition is specifying).
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Yes, because that is what's meant by the word in this context.
  - samhw 5y ago
    I'm aware, but my point is that you're not making a synthetic claim - you're not proving the (axiological) meaningfulness of a concept. You're just saying "I use this word 'utility' to describe the satisfaction of wants". It doesn't really answer any of the questions that were posed, about how you can measure and compare the 'want-satisfying-ness' of different things. How do you measure the degree of want? How do you measure the degree to which a want is satisfied? How do you compare those across human beings? If by 'trivial' in your original comment you meant 'trivial' in the technical sense[0], then I'd agree with that. "I define 'utility' as 'satisfaction of wants'" is a statement that neither predicates nor proves anything of the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triviality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triviality_(mathematics)
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      It does answer the questions by reformulating them in exactly the way you did, which immediately highlights the GPs confusion: They somehow missed the subjective and relative aspects of the concept as it is used. There is no objective and absolute measure of want-satisfying-ness (or whatever). > It's probably more like arguing that leprechauns don't exist. > In any case, I'm not saying utility can't exist. I'm saying some universal utility can't exist, or if you wish: sorry, guys, you can't determine my utility function for me. I'll do it myself, thank you very much. This is what I'm responding to.
wpietri 5y ago
You call it trivial, but the second sentence says, "Its usage has evolved significantly over time"; both can't be true. And the criticism section makes some good points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_critici... I also think there are a number of questionable assumptions behind it, and even your simple version of a supposedly trivial concept doesn't match the current official definition well. So to me this isn't so much an obvious fact about the world as a synthetic cornerstone to a worldview. Sort of like Peano's construction of the integers, or the way theists talk about the things that are "pretty basic" to their religion. Those things feel trivial to their adherents, of course. But the rest of us can find sweeping dismissals like yours as very offputting.

samhw 5y ago

You're just defining satisfaction of wants as utility. "Things that satisfy wants have utility" is a statement of a definition, not a synthetic claim. There are plenty of measures of utility other than hedonic ones (or volitional ones, or whatever exactly your definition is specifying).

guerrilla 5y ago
Yes, because that is what's meant by the word in this context.
- samhw 5y ago
  I'm aware, but my point is that you're not making a synthetic claim - you're not proving the (axiological) meaningfulness of a concept. You're just saying "I use this word 'utility' to describe the satisfaction of wants". It doesn't really answer any of the questions that were posed, about how you can measure and compare the 'want-satisfying-ness' of different things. How do you measure the degree of want? How do you measure the degree to which a want is satisfied? How do you compare those across human beings? If by 'trivial' in your original comment you meant 'trivial' in the technical sense[0], then I'd agree with that. "I define 'utility' as 'satisfaction of wants'" is a statement that neither predicates nor proves anything of the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triviality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triviality_(mathematics)
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    It does answer the questions by reformulating them in exactly the way you did, which immediately highlights the GPs confusion: They somehow missed the subjective and relative aspects of the concept as it is used. There is no objective and absolute measure of want-satisfying-ness (or whatever). > It's probably more like arguing that leprechauns don't exist. > In any case, I'm not saying utility can't exist. I'm saying some universal utility can't exist, or if you wish: sorry, guys, you can't determine my utility function for me. I'll do it myself, thank you very much. This is what I'm responding to.

wpietri 5y ago

You call it trivial, but the second sentence says, "Its usage has evolved significantly over time"; both can't be true. And the criticism section makes some good points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_critici... I also think there are a number of questionable assumptions behind it, and even your simple version of a supposedly trivial concept doesn't match the current official definition well. So to me this isn't so much an obvious fact about the world as a synthetic cornerstone to a worldview. Sort of like Peano's construction of the integers, or the way theists talk about the things that are "pretty basic" to their religion. Those things feel trivial to their adherents, of course. But the rest of us can find sweeping dismissals like yours as very offputting.