My reference looks OK to me. It supports my position just fine—and you don’t seem to disagree with it. However, here is another similar one:
Utility: Economist-speak for a good thing; a measure of satisfaction. (See also WELFARE.) Underlying most economic theory is the assumption that people do things because doing so gives them utility. People want as much utility as they can get.
However such definitions are simply inadequate for use in decision theory applications.
Note that utility is NOT defined as being associated with states of the external world, things in the future—or anything like that. It is simply a measure of an agent’s satisfaction.
If you really do think that satisfaction is tied to outcomes, then I think you could benefit from some more exposure to Buddhism—which teaches that satisfaction lies within. The hypothesis that it is solely a function of the state of the external world is just wrong.
My reference looks OK to me. It supports my position just fine—and you don’t seem to disagree with it. However, here is another similar one:
http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=U
It is true that some economic definitions of utility attach utility to “goods and services”—or to “humans”—e.g.:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utility
However such definitions are simply inadequate for use in decision theory applications.
Note that utility is NOT defined as being associated with states of the external world, things in the future—or anything like that. It is simply a measure of an agent’s satisfaction.
If you really do think that satisfaction is tied to outcomes, then I think you could benefit from some more exposure to Buddhism—which teaches that satisfaction lies within. The hypothesis that it is solely a function of the state of the external world is just wrong.