I think you did change my meaning. There are tradeoffs between terminal values. The are frequently cases where one would be willing to sacrifice some of one for some of another. What I mean is there is no X for which I would not prefer Health+X to sickness+X. That is, ceteris paribus, I would always rather be healthy than sick, even if the consequences were the same. The thing is, any terminal value has other desirable consequences when achieved. But if I would value the thing even without those consequences (eg, if I was as productive when sick as when healthy) then it’s a terminal.
I understood “prefer health to sickness + X” “prefer (health) to (sickness + X)” rather than “prefer health to sickness, even if X is added to both sides.”
I think you did change my meaning. There are tradeoffs between terminal values. The are frequently cases where one would be willing to sacrifice some of one for some of another. What I mean is there is no X for which I would not prefer Health+X to sickness+X. That is, ceteris paribus, I would always rather be healthy than sick, even if the consequences were the same. The thing is, any terminal value has other desirable consequences when achieved. But if I would value the thing even without those consequences (eg, if I was as productive when sick as when healthy) then it’s a terminal.
Ah! I see.
I understood “prefer health to sickness + X” “prefer (health) to (sickness + X)” rather than “prefer health to sickness, even if X is added to both sides.”
Thanks for the clarification.
I intended the grammar as you understood it, which was an oversimplification. Thanks for helping me clarify my own thoughts.