I would like to see sequences of top-level postings which consist of systematic, chapter-by-chapter reviews of books which are of interest to rationalists.
As one example of such a book: Rawls: “A Theory of Justice”
This one is important because Rawls’s device of “the original position” is one clever way to make utilitarianism mathematically respectable, in that it permits interpersonal comparison of utilities.
This one is important because Rawls’s device of “the original position” is one clever way to make utilitarianism mathematically respectable, in that it permits interpersonal comparison of utilities.
I would like to thank you for your expression of incredulity. It forced me to look at the question a little more closely, and led me to this excellent paper by Binmore. If I had read it first, I would not have been so complimentary about Rawls. I had forgotten just how different Rawls’s ‘Veil of Ignorance’ is from Harsanyi’s. And it is Harsanyi’s version that deserves our respect, not Rawls’s. Nevertheless, I think I was technically correct. Rawls ismathematically respectable, however deficient he is on more realistic grounds.
There are several issues here worth discussing, including:
Rawls’s maximin vs Harsanyi’s lottery (Rawls, in effect, assumes infinite risk aversion)
Objective vs subjective interpersonal comparisons. Do people agree on their interpersonal comparisons? Does it matter, since decision-making is subjective in any case?
Our lack of direct access to other people’s preferences (which is also a problem in standard complete-information game theory even if you don’t attempt interpersonal comparisons).
I probably ought to put together a top-level posting on this topic—if only to clarify my own thinking. But I’m too lazy right now. So instead, I’ll just reread Binmore’s paper and maybe check out some of his references.
I would like to thank you for your expression of incredulity
That was mostly me balking at the idea of Rawls providing a justification for utilitarianism, because as I recall Theory of Justice argues strongly against utilitarianism.
I would like to see sequences of top-level postings which consist of systematic, chapter-by-chapter reviews of books which are of interest to rationalists.
As one example of such a book: Rawls: “A Theory of Justice”
This one is important because Rawls’s device of “the original position” is one clever way to make utilitarianism mathematically respectable, in that it permits interpersonal comparison of utilities.
What !?
I would like to thank you for your expression of incredulity. It forced me to look at the question a little more closely, and led me to this excellent paper by Binmore. If I had read it first, I would not have been so complimentary about Rawls. I had forgotten just how different Rawls’s ‘Veil of Ignorance’ is from Harsanyi’s. And it is Harsanyi’s version that deserves our respect, not Rawls’s. Nevertheless, I think I was technically correct. Rawls is mathematically respectable, however deficient he is on more realistic grounds.
There are several issues here worth discussing, including:
Rawls’s maximin vs Harsanyi’s lottery (Rawls, in effect, assumes infinite risk aversion)
Objective vs subjective interpersonal comparisons. Do people agree on their interpersonal comparisons? Does it matter, since decision-making is subjective in any case?
Our lack of direct access to other people’s preferences (which is also a problem in standard complete-information game theory even if you don’t attempt interpersonal comparisons).
I probably ought to put together a top-level posting on this topic—if only to clarify my own thinking. But I’m too lazy right now. So instead, I’ll just reread Binmore’s paper and maybe check out some of his references.
That was mostly me balking at the idea of Rawls providing a justification for utilitarianism, because as I recall Theory of Justice argues strongly against utilitarianism.