> No.  First, I don't agree that the real question is what the utility 
> function is or should be.  The real question is whether the measure, M, is 
> conserved or whether it decreases.  It's just that a lot of people don't 
> understand what that means.

I agree that a lot of people don't understand what that means, and I 
certainly appreciate your effort to educate them. But it seems to me that 
once someone does understand that issue, it's not assured that they'll fall 
into the U=M*Q camp automatically.

> The next point is that while U=M*Q is perfectly well defined, U=Q is not, 
> and I don't know what you mean by it.
> OK, you might ask "huh?" when I say that.  What I mean is that M*Q is just 
> a caricature of a utility function but should obviously be generalized to 
> the case of multiple types of observations by using Sum_i M_i Q_i.

U=Q would be generalized to (Sum_i M_i Q_i) / (Sum_i M_i). This seems just 
as well defined as Sum_i M_i Q_i. You objected that "personal identity is 
not well-defined" but don't you need to define personal identity to compute 
Sum_i M_i Q_i as well, in order to determine which i to sum over?

BTW, I note that there seems to be a parallel between this debate, and the 
one between average and total utilitarianism.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to