5 ms·

I agree, i think it's far more likely that those favoring the disabled child are simply rejecting the artificial and abstract notion of utility described in the

I agree, i think it's far more likely that those favoring the disabled child are simply rejecting the artificial and abstract notion of utility described in the hypothetical, and going with their own experience. Which is that the real-world utility to the disabled child is in fact far higher. I don't think anyone could read that hypothetical (particularly in the age of the Internet) and believe that putting a gifted child in a city would be significantly harmful to them.

michael-ax 5y ago
now you're touching on the limits of knowledge of those making choices and might be tempted to rate them. that's out of scope for the deciders at that level, the parents in that story. ... the point is that they know the situation best. and that utility lets them quantify the subjective to test-run the rationalizations going into their decisions. e.g. "maximising sum(log(utility))" like the comment on the article said. the only thing strange here is that philosophy deals with qualitative, not just quantitative domains. thus they tell these stories. :)
- vannevar 5y ago
  True, but the parents in the story are imaginary---their decision-making is not being tested. Rather, it's the observer who is being tested. But the story is so contrary to experience that is does not do what the premise of the article suggests it does: distinguish observers that care more about equality than utility. Because the premise is flawed (ie, that this is a valid test), it tends to moot the rest of the article drawn from that premise.
toast0 5y ago
The city vs suburb is just a lazy shorthand to setup the hypothetical. If the issue is transportation time to a hospital, you could live in a suburb near a hospital. Some cities have excellent schools and some cities have awful schools and the same for suburbs. To make my own lazy shorthand, would you consider it significantly harmful if a gifted child is placed in a classroom where everyone else is behind grade level and the instruction is paced accordingly vs a classroom where instruction is paced at grade level or perhaps at an accelerated pace? If that's not enough, what if it's a rougher school where physical altercations are the norm. Sure, these days, there's the internet, the magical cornucopia of knowledge, but it can be hard to get the motivation to use it. All that said, my personal utility function measures a lot more utility for independence than for education and what not. If a better situation for the disable child may result in more independence for the disabled child, the gifted child is just going to have to make the best of a situation that's been decided for someone else's best interest.

michael-ax 5y ago

now you're touching on the limits of knowledge of those making choices and might be tempted to rate them. that's out of scope for the deciders at that level, the parents in that story. ... the point is that they know the situation best. and that utility lets them quantify the subjective to test-run the rationalizations going into their decisions. e.g. "maximising sum(log(utility))" like the comment on the article said. the only thing strange here is that philosophy deals with qualitative, not just quantitative domains. thus they tell these stories. :)

vannevar 5y ago
True, but the parents in the story are imaginary---their decision-making is not being tested. Rather, it's the observer who is being tested. But the story is so contrary to experience that is does not do what the premise of the article suggests it does: distinguish observers that care more about equality than utility. Because the premise is flawed (ie, that this is a valid test), it tends to moot the rest of the article drawn from that premise.

toast0 5y ago

The city vs suburb is just a lazy shorthand to setup the hypothetical. If the issue is transportation time to a hospital, you could live in a suburb near a hospital. Some cities have excellent schools and some cities have awful schools and the same for suburbs. To make my own lazy shorthand, would you consider it significantly harmful if a gifted child is placed in a classroom where everyone else is behind grade level and the instruction is paced accordingly vs a classroom where instruction is paced at grade level or perhaps at an accelerated pace? If that's not enough, what if it's a rougher school where physical altercations are the norm. Sure, these days, there's the internet, the magical cornucopia of knowledge, but it can be hard to get the motivation to use it. All that said, my personal utility function measures a lot more utility for independence than for education and what not. If a better situation for the disable child may result in more independence for the disabled child, the gifted child is just going to have to make the best of a situation that's been decided for someone else's best interest.