Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A perfect single-number hedonimeter measuring happiness w... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A perfect single-number hedonimeter measuring happiness with full precision may be impossible even in principle.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bentham's own felicific calculus required seven independent dimensions (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent), each raising distinct incommensurability problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ruth Chang's work on 'on a par' relations demonstrates that value comparisons can be neither equal, greater, nor lesser, making aggregation into a single number formally incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If even two hedonic states can stand in a 'parity' relation resistant to cardinal ordering, then a single-number hedonimeter would systematically misrepresent the structure of hedonic value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pleasure and pain involve phenomenal qualia whose intrinsic character resists reduction to any uniform cardinal scale, as argued by Nagel's 'what it is like' framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Interpersonal comparisons of hedonic intensity require a common unit that cannot be grounded in either behavioral or neurological data without begging the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Happiness might involve multiple dimensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Those dimensions either cannot be precisely quantified or cannot be summed into a single value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    Bentham's own felicific calculus required seven independent dimensions (intensit...Happiness might involve multiple dimensions.If even two hedonic states can stand in a 'parity' relation resistant to cardina...Interpersonal comparisons of hedonic intensity require a common unit that cannot...
    +3 moreShow less
    Pleasure and pain involve phenomenal qualia whose intrinsic character resists re...Ruth Chang's work on 'on a par' relations demonstrates that value comparisons ca...Those dimensions either cannot be precisely quantified or cannot be summed into ...

    Similar

    There is no in-principle barrier to measuring how happy people are, at...81%Happiness measurement may never achieve the precision of Edgeworth's e...81%Even if happiness involves multiple dimensions that cannot be precisel...81%Current happiness measures provide meaningful information about how ha...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: happiness
    View source passageHide passage
    With the explosive rise of empirical research on happiness, a central question is how far, and how, happiness might be measured.[11] There seems to be no in-principle barrier to the idea of measuring, at least roughly, how happy people are. Investigators may never enjoy the precision of the “hedonimeter” once envisaged by Edgeworth to show just how happy a person is (Edgeworth 1881). Indeed, such a device might be impossible even in principle, since happiness might involve multiple dimensions
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit