ozziegooen's Shortform

Would anyone here disagree with the statement:

Utilitarians should generally be willing to accept losses of knowledge / epistemics for other resources, conditional on the expected value of the trade being positive.

Showing 3 of 22 replies (Click to show all)

Non-Bayesian Utilitarian that are ambiguity averse sometimes need to sacrifice "expected utility" to gain more certainty (in quotes because that need not be well defined).

1AprilSR1moIf you have epistemic terminal values then it would not be a positive expected value trade, would it? Unless "expected value" is referring to the expected value of something other than your utility function, in which case it should've been specified.
2ozziegooen1moYep, I would generally think so. I was doing what may be a poor steelman of my assumptions of how others would disagree; I don't have a great sense of what people who would disagree would say at this point.

ozziegooen's Shortform

by ozziegooen 31st Aug 2019127 comments