In a world of just 10 people, which of these is better? (1) the world has 100 units of net happiness, but one of the 10 people gets all 100 units (the others each get 0) or (2) the world has 99.9 net happiness divided equally among the 10 people (so they each get 9.99 units)

Which of these worlds is better? (1) there are 100 units of net happiness due to everyone being hooked up to machines that convince them they're winning the Nobel Prize at all moments (2) there are 99.9 units of net happiness because people live nice lives that they choose

Which of these worlds is better? (1) there are 100 units of net happiness because someone instantly and painlessly assassinated a slightly unhappy hermit who DID NOT want to die (2) there are 99.9 units of net happiness because the hermit (who has -0.1 net happiness) is alive

Which of these worlds is better? (1) there are 1 billion units of net happiness because there are one trillion beings who each have 0.001 net happiness (2) there's slightly less than 1 billion units of net happiness because there are 1 million beings who each have 999.99 units

Which of these worlds is better? (1) 1 million units of net world happiness due to you spending $5K on saving a stranger's life (2) slightly less than 1 million units of net happiness because you spent $5K for a non-life saving but important medical procedure for your loved one

Which of these worlds is better? (1) You steal all the money ($100 million) from a kindly, completely senile 95-year-old and give it to an effective charity (knowing you won't get caught) (2) You convince a selfish wealthy person to give $98 million to the effective charity

Which of these worlds is better? (1) one innocent person is brutally tortured for 50 years to prevent a minor inconvenience for 10 million people, causing a very slight total increase in net happiness (2) the person isn't tortured so 10 million people are minorly inconvenienced

Which of these worlds is better? (1) 1 billion net happiness because the only thing that exists are microscopic, dumb, simple organisms experiencing nothing but orgasmic bliss (2) slightly less than 1 billion net happiness due to an excellent, thriving civilization of humans

Which world is better? (1) a woman (using birth control) who unluckily got pregnant aborts her fetus in the 1st trimester because she really doesn't want to have it (but if born, the child would live a very happy life) (2) the woman has the child (more net world happiness)

Which world is better? (1) a 99.9% chance of minus 1 million net happiness (a hell on earth), with a 1 in 1000 chance of positive 1.1 billion net happiness (a super-duper heaven on earth (2) A pleasantly happy world with a guaranteed 99,000 net happiness (lower expected value)

Which world is better? (1) everyone’s miserable but there’s 0% chance of hell and heaven (2) While alive, everyone has a great life, but there’s a 1 in a billion chance hell exists - it lasts forever (and no heaven). This means negative infinity expected value of net happiness.

Which world is better? (1) 100 people exist, they each have 0.001 net happiness yearly (slightly better than not existing), and each lives 100,000 years giving 10,000 total (2) 100 people exist, they have 1 net happiness each year, and each lives 99.99 years, giving 9,999 total

Which world is better? (1) A human is tortured for as many hours as it takes to produce 1 unit of suffering (i.e., -1 units of net happiness) (2) A pig is tortured for as many hours as it takes to produce 1.01 units of suffering (i.e., -1.01 units of net happiness)

Which world is better? (1) An advanced alien species decides to kill everyone on a civilized planet (instantly + painlessly), replacing each of them with a similar person that's dispositionally happier (slightly raising total net happiness) (2) The alien species doesn't do that

Which world is better? (1) a utilitarian person (seeking to do good) tortures 100 innocent people because they know that it (somehow, with certainty) will prevent a bad person from (equally badly) torturing 101 innocent people (2) the bad person tortures the 101 innocent people

@SpencrGreenberg Happiness is not utility. Other things matter too! Almost all of these tradeoffs are “tiny change in net happiness in exchange for some other value”. Which of course the answer is “give up a little happiness for a lot of another value”, if you are a utilitarian.

@eshear utilitarians (of the type I'm describing here - e.g., "hedonic") only care about happiness and suffering.

@SpencrGreenberg Gonna pull the rug out from this. Happiness isn't quantifiably valuable metric for evolutionary fitness therefore of no long term utility . Some people are "happy" hanging from hooks in their skin.

@StevePender What's the purpose of evolutionary fitness in your view? Is it better according to your values if the evolutionary fit survive (e.g., if the evolutionary optimal strategy is to steal and harm is that a good thing that those who do that win out)?

@SpencrGreenberg I don’t think these test for utilitarianism as much as hedonistic utilitarianism specifically, you can still be maximally utilitarian but not think net happiness is a good enough metric

@keithwynroe Yes, this is hedonic utilitarianism that is being tested

@SpencrGreenberg Thirdly, I I suspect people will substitute the units you mention for nice things they are more familiar with and which often have decreasing marginal returns. Not to say your conclusions are wrong, I just find the measures problematic. It's difficult to find quick and good ones.

@FabienneSand Agreed that it’s hard to give people the right intuition here. On the other hand, I think that most people DO view total net happiness as having diminishing marginal return (even when understanding it correctly). Do you disagree?

@SpencrGreenberg Another likely problem seems that most people wouldn't know what you meant by "happiness", as the word means something different in philosophy and in everyday language.

@FabienneSand What word would you suggest instead?

@SpencrGreenberg This is an interesting attempt, but doesn’t it critically require you to define units of happiness and suffering? How is it possible to answer the questions without it, and with just the abstract term?

@SpencrGreenberg Considerations of moral uncertainty seem really significant in the questions where the maximizing answer is only ever so slightly more maximal than the alternative.

@SpencrGreenberg I wrote a response thread about how I think through these questions. https://x.com/galestorm94/stat...

@SpencrGreenberg For the last hypothetical, I chose guarantee over lottery assuming it's one shot. If we got to play the lottery an infinite number of times, I would lean more toward lottery. In general my answers tell me I have slightly inconsistent utilitarian calculus.

@SpencrGreenberg There are a number of problems with most of these experiments. A big one is that in the real world, the supposedly utilitarian choice would be very bad also from a utilitarian perspective. Even if you had added assumptions to change this, people would find them hard to buy.