6 ms·
If you haven't heard of the topic of the article before, why do you impugn the article then? From your comment it seems like you can't distinguish what the QF p
by FabHK 1y ago
If you haven't heard of the topic of the article before, why do you impugn the article then? From your comment it seems like you can't distinguish what the QF proposal is assuming (and the author is criticizing as unrealistic) from claims of the author.
The author makes no statement about the utility of enjoying the arts vs the utility of saving lives. They're making up hypothetical examples with specific properties that demonstrate problems with QF.
- nkmnz 1y agoSorry to say, but your observation is wrong. They do make explicit statements about the utility of enjoying the arts: > They each expect to experience €6,000,000 worth of individual utility from enjoying the additional €9,000,000 of art. > Net social welfare: > Total Utility = 3 × €6,000,000 = €18,000,000 ...just to go ahead and to deny any relevancy of the utility of saved lives: > the three contributors don’t experience that utility (other than feeling good about those lives being saved, but that’s not the kind of utility we’re trying to maximize).