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
    There is no in-principle barrier to measuring how happy p... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is no in-principle barrier to measuring how happy people are, at least roughly.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Happiness measurement may never achieve the precision of Edgeworth's envisaged hedonimeter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if happiness involves multiple dimensions that cannot be precisely quantified or summed, approximate measures of happiness or its dimensions remain feasible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Depression lacks precise single-number quantification yet useful imprecise measures of depression exist, providing an analogous case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's experience machine thought experiment demonstrates that people's considered judgments about welfare systematically diverge from hedonic states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If happiness is not identical to subjective hedonic experience, then existing self-report measures fail to track the very phenomenon they purport to quantify.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A measure that reliably tracks the wrong target cannot constitute even a rough measure of happiness in any philosophically defensible sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's private language argument entails that first-person hedonic reports cannot be publicly verified or calibrated across subjects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without interpersonal calibration, aggregate happiness scores conflate incommensurable subjective scales, rendering 'measurement' a category error.
      ?

      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

    A measure that reliably tracks the wrong target cannot constitute even a rough m...Depression lacks precise single-number quantification yet useful imprecise measu...Even if happiness involves multiple dimensions that cannot be precisely quantifi...Happiness measurement may never achieve the precision of Edgeworth's envisaged h...
    +4 moreShow less
    If happiness is not identical to subjective hedonic experience, then existing se...Nozick's experience machine thought experiment demonstrates that people's consid...Without interpersonal calibration, aggregate happiness scores conflate incommens...Wittgenstein's private language argument entails that first-person hedonic repor...

    Similar

    Current happiness measures provide meaningful information about how ha...88%Current measures plausibly capture how anxious, cheerful, and satisfie...86%Even simple self-report happiness measures correlate well with friends...81%A perfect single-number hedonimeter measuring happiness with full prec...81%

    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 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit