This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---712164092-146229145-1162792861=:9540
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; FORMAT=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-ID:  

That's another tricky thing about maximizing social welfare (synonymous 
with maximizing utility, as Dave notes) -- deciding how to include 
nonhumans in the equation.  You have to include animals' utility in some 
way otherwise it would be ethically A-OK to torture animals for fun.
Or maybe it suffices that there are *people* who get disutility from the 
torture of animals.  For example, if we had a yootles auction to decide 
whether to kill a puppy, we wouldn't need the puppy's participation to 
decide not to do it.

That puts me tentatively in the "animals don't count" camp.  Anyone else?

(I disagree with Dave that 2 & 3 are subsets of 1.	Splitting utility 
equally is often more important than maximizing the sum of utilities.  For 
example, it's not OK to steal money from someone who doesn't need it as 
much as you.)

(And knowledge, truth, and scientific understanding are intrinsically 
valuable, beyond their applicability to improving social welfare.  But 
perhaps my own strong feelings about this undermine my own point.  In 
other words, maybe we don't need to include it for the same reason we 
don't need to include animal welfare.)


--- \/	 FROM Dave Morris AT 06.10.30 11:25 (Oct 30)   \/ ---

> I think that it's important to note that 2 & 3, while distinct and 
> interesting components of the discussion, are in fact subsets of 1, which 
> could be rephrased in it's general sense as "maximization of utility" if you 

> don't want to treat only the defined subset of "human". :-)
>
> On Oct 28, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
>> Based on off-line discussion with my grandfather, I propose that there are  
>> only three fundamental principles worth fighting for in human society:
>>   1. Social Welfare
>>   2. Fairness
>>   3. The Search for Knowledge
>> 
>> (This started with an argument about the parental retort "who says life's  
>> supposed to be fair?")
>>
>>   (1 and 2 are distinct because if we're all equally miserable, that's
>>   fair but not welfare maximizing.  Likewise, of the methods for dividing 
>>   a cake, for example, the method of "I get all of it" maximizes the sum
>>   of our utilities, but we nonetheless prefer splitting it in half.)
>> 
>> Is there a number 4?
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>> 
>> 
>> 
> David P. Morris, PhD
> Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
> morris Æ edapplications.com, (734)=A0786-1434, fax: (734)=A0786-3235
>
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Lassie looked brilliant in part because the farm family she lived
with was made up of idiots. Remember? One of them was always
getting pinned under the tractor and Lassie was always rushing
back to the farmhouse to alert the other ones. She'd whimper and
tug at their sleeves, and they'd always waste precious minutes
saying things: "Do you think something's wrong? Do you think she
wants us to follow her? What is it, girl?", etc., as if this had
never happened before, instead of every week. What with all the
time these people spent pinned under the tractor, I don't see how
they managed to grow any crops whatsoever. They probably got by on
federal crop supports, which Lassie filed the applications for."
   -- Dave Barry
---712164092-146229145-1162792861=:9540--