But I don’t think your example works either: it benefited Americans at the expense of Japanese. That’s not trading “friends’ utilities for higher other utilities”; its’ trading “friends’ utilities for some higher and some lower other utilities”.
When estimated by humans, utilities aren’t objective. I’m pretty sure that if you asked Col. Doolittle in those terms, he’d be of the opinion that U(US winning Pacific Theater) >> U(Japan winning Pacific Theater), taking the whole world into account; thus he probably experienced conflict between his loyalty to friends and his calculation of optimal action. (Of course he’s apt to be biased in said calculation, but that’s beside the point. There exists some possible conflict in which a similar calculation is unambiguously justified by the evidence.)
Of course he’s apt to be biased in said calculation, but that’s beside the point. There exists some possible conflict in which a similar calculation is unambiguously justified by the evidence.
Then I’m sure you can cite that instead. If it’s hard to find, well, that’s my point exactly.
When estimated by humans, utilities aren’t objective. I’m pretty sure that if you asked Col. Doolittle in those terms, he’d be of the opinion that U(US winning Pacific Theater) >> U(Japan winning Pacific Theater), taking the whole world into account; thus he probably experienced conflict between his loyalty to friends and his calculation of optimal action. (Of course he’s apt to be biased in said calculation, but that’s beside the point. There exists some possible conflict in which a similar calculation is unambiguously justified by the evidence.)
Then I’m sure you can cite that instead. If it’s hard to find, well, that’s my point exactly.