What are you trying to do with these definitions? The first three do a reasonable job of providing some explanation of what love means on a slightly simpler level than most people understand it.
However, the “love=good, hate=evil” can’t really be used like that. I don’t really see what you’re trying to say with that.
Also, I’d argue that love has more to do with signalling than your definition seems to imply.
What are you trying to do with these definitions?
Show how a tiny bit of economics can be used to provide definitions, consistent with many people’s understanding, of love, hate, good and evil. (I have provided these definitions to my intermediate microeconomics students.)
Evil, I believe, is taking pleasure in other peoples’ pain. I would exclude signaling concerns when deciding whether someone acted out of love.
So on your account, if I enjoy watching people suffer, but I nevertheless go out of my way to alleviate suffering in the world because I prefer people not suffer (thereby reducing my own pleasure), I’m evil? And if I don’t enjoy watching people suffer, but I go around causing suffering because I prefer that people suffer (again, thereby potentially reducing my own pleasure), I’m not evil?
So on your account, if I enjoy watching people suffer, but I nevertheless go out of my way to alleviate suffering in the world because I prefer people not suffer (thereby reducing my own pleasure), I’m evil?
Impossible since utility is that which you maximize or utility is measured by revealed preferences.
I’ll accept that definition of utility, but what does it have to do with enjoyment?
That is, OK, in this case I believe suffering has net negative utility, which explains my preferring to alleviate it. Am I somehow wrong, then, when I say I enjoy watching people suffer… I only think I enjoy it but I really don’t? Or what, exactly?
I should have written “Evil, I believe, is taking UTILITY in other peoples’ pain.”
Am I somehow wrong, then, when I say I enjoy watching people suffer… I only think I enjoy it but I really don’t?
From a rational actor microeconomic viewpoint this doesn’t make sense. But if you believe that enjoyment has some objective, physical basis in the brain then it just means you are mistaken.
Torturing a masochist with his consent isn’t evil. So you perhaps should have written “Evil, I believe, is taking UTILITY in other peoples’ DISUTILITY.” But then, the definition of evil equals your original definition of hate tautologically. Which may or may not be what you’ve intended.
I’ve made no claims about the basis for enjoyment, physical or otherwise, merely about my ability to recognize when I am enjoying something. But evidently the talk of enjoyment was a red herring to begin with, so I’m happy to drop it here.
What are you trying to do with these definitions? The first three do a reasonable job of providing some explanation of what love means on a slightly simpler level than most people understand it.
However, the “love=good, hate=evil” can’t really be used like that. I don’t really see what you’re trying to say with that.
Also, I’d argue that love has more to do with signalling than your definition seems to imply.
Evil, I believe, is taking pleasure in other peoples’ pain. I would exclude signaling concerns when deciding whether someone acted out of love.
Huh.
So on your account, if I enjoy watching people suffer, but I nevertheless go out of my way to alleviate suffering in the world because I prefer people not suffer (thereby reducing my own pleasure), I’m evil? And if I don’t enjoy watching people suffer, but I go around causing suffering because I prefer that people suffer (again, thereby potentially reducing my own pleasure), I’m not evil?
Did I get that right?
Impossible since utility is that which you maximize or utility is measured by revealed preferences.
I’ll accept that definition of utility, but what does it have to do with enjoyment?
That is, OK, in this case I believe suffering has net negative utility, which explains my preferring to alleviate it. Am I somehow wrong, then, when I say I enjoy watching people suffer… I only think I enjoy it but I really don’t? Or what, exactly?
I should have written “Evil, I believe, is taking UTILITY in other peoples’ pain.”
From a rational actor microeconomic viewpoint this doesn’t make sense. But if you believe that enjoyment has some objective, physical basis in the brain then it just means you are mistaken.
Torturing a masochist with his consent isn’t evil. So you perhaps should have written “Evil, I believe, is taking UTILITY in other peoples’ DISUTILITY.” But then, the definition of evil equals your original definition of hate tautologically. Which may or may not be what you’ve intended.
I’ve made no claims about the basis for enjoyment, physical or otherwise, merely about my ability to recognize when I am enjoying something. But evidently the talk of enjoyment was a red herring to begin with, so I’m happy to drop it here.
No, the word for that is sadism. Evil is about how you judge a person(’s actions, motivations etc), not purely about their experience/values.