Advertisement

Measuring the hedonimeter

  • Brian Skyrms
  • Louis Narens
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

We revisit classical Utilitarianism by connecting and generalizing two ideas. The first is that there is a representation theorem possible for hedonic value (pleasure) similar to, but also importantly different from, the one provided by von Neumann and Morgenstern to measure decision utility. The idea is to use objective time, in place of objective chance, to measure hedonic value. This representation for hedonic value delivers a stronger kind of scale than von Neumann–Morgenstern utility, a ratio scale rather than merely an interval scale. The second idea is that measurement on a ratio scale allows the meaningful aggregation of utilities over a group. This is aggregation by product rather than sum. Aggregation by product is known to have interesting Prioritarian consequences. Aggregation becomes complicated when the two approaches are mixed, when hedonic value is mixed with uncertainly. It becomes problematic when pain as well as pleasure is taken into account.

Keywords

Hedonimeter Measurement Utilitarianism Meaningfulness Prioritarian Pleasure Pain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was supported by Grant SMA-1416907 from National Science Foundation

References

  1. Aczél, J., & Roberts, F. S. (1989). On the possible merging functions. Mathematical Social Science, 17, 205–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, M. (2011). Well-being and fair distribution: Beyond cost-benefit analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: T. Payne and Son.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentham, J. (1822). Proposal, codification. “Addressed by Jeremy Bentham to all nations professing liberal opinions, 1822. Works, IV, 535–594.Google Scholar
  5. Bentham, J. The works of Jeremy Bentham. Published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838–1843). 11 vols. Vol. 4. 8/20/2017. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1925#Bentham_0872-04_4619.
  6. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1879). The hedonical calculus. Mind, 4, 394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics. Appendix III “on hedonimetry”. London: G. Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Halévy, E. (1901, 1995). La formation du radicalisme philosoplique I,II,III. (nouvelle édition réviséé, 1995). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  9. Harsanyi, J. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jevons, W. S. (1871). Theory of political economy. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  11. Kahnemann, D., Wakker, P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham: Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kreps, D. M. (1988). Notes on the theory of choice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Narens, L. (1985). Abstract measurement theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Parfit, (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parfit, (1991). Equality or priority., The lindley lecture Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  18. Parfit, D. (2004). Overpopulation and the quality of life. In J. Ryberg & T. Tännsjö (Eds.), The repugnant conclusion (pp. 7–22). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and the Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Cognitive SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations