I'm surprised people still take utilitarianism so seriously. I spent about two hours looking for a quote I remember from university (it was a while ago), where J.S. Mill had the revelation that you can't measure the depth, gravity, salience or whatever of one person's happiness or pain against that of another. IMO, the best you can do is take some kind of political agreement about "what is best" (green new deal anyone?) and further that but the idea that there is one single benchmark is nonsense. This lady's mathematical endeavours fail on principle because they are based on the axiom that you can somehow quantify the degree of happiness of a certain number of people against the relative happiness of another number of people. That is patently absurd.

The mathematical approach isn't absurd, it's rigorousâbut it does point out the absurdity of the idea of maximizing some aggregate happiness. The fact that you have to measure happiness is the problem, not the math you could do with it if you could.

There are alternative attempts at defining a utilitarian approach (how happy are the least happy people? How large is the disparity between the least and most happy? Does making somebody miserable part of the time offset them being too happy?) but they all break down at some point.

I'm surprised people still take utilitarianism so seriously. I spent about two hours looking for a quote I remember from university (it was a while ago), where J.S. Mill had the revelation that you can't measure the depth, gravity, salience or whatever of one person's happiness or pain against that of another. IMO, the best you can do is take some kind of political agreement about "what is best" (green new deal anyone?) and further that but the idea that there is one single benchmark is nonsense. This lady's mathematical endeavours fail on principle because they are based on the axiom that you can somehow quantify the degree of happiness of a certain number of people against the relative happiness of another number of people. That is patently absurd.

The mathematical approach isn't absurd, it's rigorous—but it does point out the absurdity of the idea of maximizing some aggregate happiness. The fact that you have to measure happiness is the problem, not the math you could do with it if you could.

There are alternative attempts at defining a utilitarian approach (how happy are the least happy people? How large is the disparity between the least and most happy? Does making somebody miserable part of the time offset them being too happy?) but they all break down at some point.

I'm surprised people still take utilitarianism so seriously. I spent about two hours looking for a quote I remember from university (it was a while ago), where J.S. Mill had the revelation that you can't measure the depth, gravity, salience or whatever of one person's happiness or pain against that of another. IMO, the best you can do is take some kind of political agreement about "what is best" (green new deal anyone?) and further that but the idea that there is one single benchmark is nonsense. This lady's mathematical endeavours fail on principle because they are based on the axiom that you can somehow quantify the degree of happiness of a certain number of people against the relative happiness of another number of people. That is patently absurd.

The mathematical approach isn't absurd, it's rigorousâbut it does point out the absurdity of the idea of maximizing some aggregate happiness. The fact that you have to measure happiness is the problem, not the math you could do with it if you could.

There are alternative attempts at defining a utilitarian approach (how happy are the least happy people? How large is the disparity between the least and most happy? Does making somebody miserable part of the time offset them being too happy?) but they all break down at some point.

I'm surprised people still take utilitarianism so seriously. I spent about two hours looking for a quote I remember from university (it was a while ago), where J.S. Mill had the revelation that you can't measure the depth, gravity, salience or whatever of one person's happiness or pain against that of another. IMO, the best you can do is take some kind of political agreement about "what is best" (green new deal anyone?) and further that but the idea that there is one single benchmark is nonsense. This lady's mathematical endeavours fail on principle because they are based on the axiom that you can somehow quantify the degree of happiness of a certain number of people against the relative happiness of another number of people. That is patently absurd.

The mathematical approach isn't absurd, it's rigorous—but it does point out the absurdity of the idea of maximizing some aggregate happiness. The fact that you have to measure happiness is the problem, not the math you could do with it if you could.

There are alternative attempts at defining a utilitarian approach (how happy are the least happy people? How large is the disparity between the least and most happy? Does making somebody miserable part of the time offset them being too happy?) but they all break down at some point.

Lazy8 wrote: I'm surprised people still take utilitarianism so seriously. I spent about two hours looking for a quote I remember from university (it was a while ago), where J.S. Mill had the revelation that you can't measure the depth, gravity, salience or whatever of one person's happiness or pain against that of another. IMO, the best you can do is take some kind of political agreement about "what is best" (green new deal anyone?) and further that but the idea that there is one single benchmark is nonsense. This lady's mathematical endeavours fail on principle because they are based on the axiom that you can somehow quantify the degree of happiness of a certain number of people against the relative happiness of another number of people. That is patently absurd.

This is actually a really good conversation that fits the sweet spot of deep meaningful thought and over articulated fluff. Ironically coming from these 2!