tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post6784000383289111662..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: I see Sam Harrismillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-34512362981448995952010-11-15T09:54:27.200-08:002010-11-15T09:54:27.200-08:00A mistake to equate utility with well-being, I mea...A mistake to equate utility with well-being, I mean.drransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-78581340003977932652010-11-15T09:53:46.976-08:002010-11-15T09:53:46.976-08:00It is a huge issue, which is why economists like t...It is a huge issue, which is why economists like the Pareto criterion so much. But since the Pareto criterio is too hard to satisfy, they work with the Kaldor-Hicks wealth-maximization standard instead. In theory, you can move stuff around to reach a Pareto-efficient outcome from a K-H one, but (a) nobody has any interest in doing this and (b) announcing the transfers in advance keeps you from reaching the K-H oucome in the first place.<br /><br />There's a huge amount of theory that goes beyond the Pareto criterion, which I don't really understand, but you're basically right about the additive problem.<br /><br />I think it's also a mistake utility (which is nonunique construct from the preference relation) with well-being. I know my revealed preferences don't correspond with <i>my</i> well-being!drransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-59881125811340971172010-11-12T21:05:35.156-08:002010-11-12T21:05:35.156-08:00isn't that also a huge issue in economics?
It...<i>isn't that also a huge issue in economics?</i><br /><br />It's not a *huge* issue. Economists typically assume that people really do know what they want; we infer what they want from how they behave. If a person buys an alarm clock for $10, we assume they want the alarm clock more than they want anything else they can get for $10.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-50653141873565838942010-11-12T20:02:04.649-08:002010-11-12T20:02:04.649-08:00Yeah, that too. There is no unique way to add the...Yeah, that too. There is no unique way to add the well-being of multiple people. Thanks for reminding me. Come to think of it, isn't that also a huge issue in economics? At one point, Sam Harris made an analogy between morality and economics, but perhaps the analogy was apt in a way that hurt his point.<br /><br />I think it's fairly trivial to claim that culture informs religion and religion informs culture. I make no claims about which direction is more important.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-43376655254626599512010-11-12T16:34:36.185-08:002010-11-12T16:34:36.185-08:00etI don't think "what produces the most w...etI don't think "what produces the most well-being?" is a question science can answer. You have to consider what counts as "well-being," decide how to combine the well-being of different people, decide whether adding more people counts as adding more well-being, decide whether and how to discount the well-being of future people, and so on. Those are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.<br /><br />I'm also not sure it counts as changing the question from "what is good or bad?" It's just as much like an answer to the question.<br /><br />I'm a bit surprised that you buy his claim that some religions create better cultures than others. It seems at least as true that some cultures produce better religions than others.drransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-6655185555068104852010-11-12T13:10:27.493-08:002010-11-12T13:10:27.493-08:00I'm not sure that science should replace philo...I'm not sure that science <i>should</i> replace philosophy in discussions of morality. I think instead good philosophy should be replacing bad philosophy (such as religious philosophy).<br /><br />Massimo Pigliucci talks about this sort of thing more often than I do, so I recommend <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html" rel="nofollow">what he wrote</a>.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-33955344205376100692010-11-12T11:53:36.891-08:002010-11-12T11:53:36.891-08:00On questioning speakers, I have the confidence to ...On questioning speakers, I have the confidence to ask them, I did at Michael Shermer's talk at the U of MN last month. And my question was brief, but I lacked the confidence to pose my <a href="http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/2009/07/question-follow-up.html" rel="nofollow">follow-up</a> when Shermer didn't take the question where I wanted it to go. (Not his fault, the question was perhaps too brief).<br /><br />On objectivism, that was a burn! But not entirely fair, though. Going on what I've heard and read (always fun), I would say Harris is going for more of an empirical moral truth than an objective one (Plato-like truth existing apart from experience).<br /><br />His meta-goal seems to be to replace philosophy with science in the discussion of morality. Big goal, but I think he's taken a step towards it with his latest effort.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.com