For simplicity’s sake, we could assume a hedonistic view that blissful ignorance about something one does not want is not a loss of utility, defining utility as positive conscious experiences minus negative conscious experiences. But I admit that not everyone will agree with this view of utility.
Also, Aristotle would probably argue that you can have Eudaimonic happiness or sadness about something you don’t know about, but Eudaimonia is a bit of a strange concept.
Regardless, given that there is uncertainty about the claims made by the questioner, how would you answer?
Consider this rephrasing of the question:
If you were in a situation where someone (possibly Omega… okay let’s assume Omega) claimed that you could choose between two options: Truth or Happiness, which option would you choose?
Note that there is significant uncertainty involved in this question, and that this is a feature, rather than a bug of the question. Given that you aren’t sure what “Truth” or “Happiness” means in this situation, you may have to elaborate and consider all the possibilities for what Omega could be meaning (perhaps even assigning them probabilities...). Given this quandary, is it still possible to come up with a “correct” rational answer?
If it’s not, what additional information from Omega would be required to make the question sufficiently well-defined to answer?
Defining happiness as “guaranteed increased utility” is questionable. It doesn’t consider situations of blissful ignorance, where
We can’t seem to agree whether being blissfully ignorant about something one does not want is a loss of utility at all
If that does count as a loss of utility, utility would not equate to happiness because you can’t be happy or sad about something you don’t know about.
For simplicity’s sake, we could assume a hedonistic view that blissful ignorance about something one does not want is not a loss of utility, defining utility as positive conscious experiences minus negative conscious experiences. But I admit that not everyone will agree with this view of utility.
Also, Aristotle would probably argue that you can have Eudaimonic happiness or sadness about something you don’t know about, but Eudaimonia is a bit of a strange concept.
Regardless, given that there is uncertainty about the claims made by the questioner, how would you answer?
Consider this rephrasing of the question:
If you were in a situation where someone (possibly Omega… okay let’s assume Omega) claimed that you could choose between two options: Truth or Happiness, which option would you choose?
Note that there is significant uncertainty involved in this question, and that this is a feature, rather than a bug of the question. Given that you aren’t sure what “Truth” or “Happiness” means in this situation, you may have to elaborate and consider all the possibilities for what Omega could be meaning (perhaps even assigning them probabilities...). Given this quandary, is it still possible to come up with a “correct” rational answer?
If it’s not, what additional information from Omega would be required to make the question sufficiently well-defined to answer?