But in a world with house elves, they are even worse off—they are just unemployed, rather than having the option of taking the job. I doubt more than a trifling amount of the money saved by Hogwarts trickles down to them.
I realise that considering the effect of house elves on the job market goes far outside the scope of this problem in the philosophy of consciousness, and much far outside the scope of the Potterverse; but once you start taking into account the welfare of the hypothetical replacements for house elves, there’s no real way to dodge the question.
For philosophical debates, it’s probably better to stick with the pig that wants to be eaten.
I pointed out that your argument doesn’t contradict Locas’s statement that those who don’t enjoy the work will be forced to do it, and specifically disclaimed that choosing to do the work regardless might well be rational of them (and hence making them better off). Yet in reply you elaborate in what manner this decision can be rational, as if objecting to what I said. I don’t see what you disagree with (besides usage of the word “forced”).
Also:
But in a world with house elves, they are even worse off—they are just unemployed, rather than having the option of taking the job.
They are not unemployed, they choose the next best option available.
But in a world with house elves, they are even worse off—they are just unemployed, rather than having the option of taking the job. I doubt more than a trifling amount of the money saved by Hogwarts trickles down to them.
I realise that considering the effect of house elves on the job market goes far outside the scope of this problem in the philosophy of consciousness, and much far outside the scope of the Potterverse; but once you start taking into account the welfare of the hypothetical replacements for house elves, there’s no real way to dodge the question.
For philosophical debates, it’s probably better to stick with the pig that wants to be eaten.
I pointed out that your argument doesn’t contradict Locas’s statement that those who don’t enjoy the work will be forced to do it, and specifically disclaimed that choosing to do the work regardless might well be rational of them (and hence making them better off). Yet in reply you elaborate in what manner this decision can be rational, as if objecting to what I said. I don’t see what you disagree with (besides usage of the word “forced”).
Also:
They are not unemployed, they choose the next best option available.
That.
You’re right. It’s still a strictly worse situation for them, though, since they lose one option and gain nothing.