So, we’re assuming here that there’s no problem comparing A and B, which means these valuations are normalized relative to some individual scale. The problem, as you say, is with the scaling factor between individuals. So it seems I end up with something like (AX + BY + FCX + FDY), where F is the value of my partner’s preferences relative to mine. Yes?
And as you say, there’s an infinite number of Fs and my choice of action depends on which F I pick.
And we’re rejecting the idea that F is simply the strength of my preference for my partner’s satisfaction. If that were the case, there’d be no problem calculating a result… though of course no guarantee that my partner and I would calculate the same result. Yes?
If so, I agree that that coming up with a correct value for F sure does seem like an intractable, and quite likely incoherent, problem.
Going back to the original statement… “an ethical rationalist’s goals in relationship-seeking should be to seek a relationship that creates maximal utility for both parties” seems to be saying F should approximate 1. Which is arbitrary, admittedly.
And we’re rejecting the idea that F is simply the strength of my preference for my partner’s satisfaction. If that were the case, there’d be no problem calculating a result… though of course no guarantee that my partner and I would calculate the same result. Yes?
Yes. If you and your partner agree- that is, A/B=C/D- then there’s no trouble. If you disagree, though, there’s no objectively correct way to determine the correct action.
Going back to the original statement… “an ethical rationalist’s goals in relationship-seeking should be to seek a relationship that creates maximal utility for both parties” seems to be saying F should approximate 1. Which is arbitrary, admittedly.
Possibly, though many cases with F=1 seem like things PhilosophyTutor would find unethical. It seems more meaningful to look at A and B.
So, we’re assuming here that there’s no problem comparing A and B, which means these valuations are normalized relative to some individual scale. The problem, as you say, is with the scaling factor between individuals. So it seems I end up with something like (AX + BY + FCX + FDY), where F is the value of my partner’s preferences relative to mine. Yes?
And as you say, there’s an infinite number of Fs and my choice of action depends on which F I pick.
And we’re rejecting the idea that F is simply the strength of my preference for my partner’s satisfaction. If that were the case, there’d be no problem calculating a result… though of course no guarantee that my partner and I would calculate the same result. Yes?
If so, I agree that that coming up with a correct value for F sure does seem like an intractable, and quite likely incoherent, problem.
Going back to the original statement… “an ethical rationalist’s goals in relationship-seeking should be to seek a relationship that creates maximal utility for both parties” seems to be saying F should approximate 1. Which is arbitrary, admittedly.
Yes. If you and your partner agree- that is, A/B=C/D- then there’s no trouble. If you disagree, though, there’s no objectively correct way to determine the correct action.
Possibly, though many cases with F=1 seem like things PhilosophyTutor would find unethical. It seems more meaningful to look at A and B.