Utility as an axiom for life?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Steamy
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: March 12th, 2023, 9:56 pm

Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by Steamy »

I define utility to be one's overall satisfaction at any given moment. For this to be the case, utility must include all possible feelings a human can experience. Indeed, each emotion influences overall utility with a different weighting, and these weightings change with each moment subject to the environment.

Some have tried to objectively measure the utility of individuals, with not much success. While certain emotions such as happiness, pleasure and anger can be correlated with higher and lower utilities, overall utility is still very much personal to each individual. As it would be misleading to only include happiness and pleasure in utility, every single possible emotion is included in my definition, unlike hedonism and utilitarianism.
While utility is an immeasurable concept, there is no doubt that every human does have a set level of utility at all waking hours, since every human is always feeling something at every moment.

You make every decision in your life because you feel the outcome(s) of the decision will result in the highest utility for yourself, considering both the short and long term. If you felt it would not, you would have made a different decision.
Note: there is a difference between the utility that one earns from making a decision, and the utility one actually receives afterwards. Again, these utilities are usually correlated (you make decisions predicting their impacts afterwards), but they are not the same.
For example, consider person A that follows a hedonistic mindset (one that aims to maximise pleasure and minimise pain), and a more disciplined person B, who sacrifices the majority of pleasures in the present. Clearly, person B values the future much more than person A, and person A does not see much long-term payoff from feeling pain in the present. While they take opposite approaches to life, they both attempt to increase their overall utility. It is just that pleasure has a higher weight in person A's utility function, while person B's utility lost from physical and mental discipline is less than would be lost through the dissatisfaction of not working towards their long-term goals.

Here is the axiom I propose: In the present moment, every human prefers higher levels of utility to lower levels of utility.

Every single waking moment of every human life can be linked in some way to this principle of utility. Every decision you make, every goal you strive for, and every fulfilling activity and action can be derived from it.
Since this principle of utility is so universal, I propose it as an axiom for life.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by chewybrian »

I would compare your axiom to one that is omnipresent in the world of finance. The CEO or CFO attempts to maximize shareholder equity. Every decision is viewed through that lens (another way to look at it is to take the decision that gives you the best expected return after weighting for risk).

So, what is wrong with that idea?

Short terms gains and long term gains may be at odds; maximizing short term gains might reduce long term gains, and vice versa. We all have limited information and biases that may be known or unknown to us. The spreadsheets are too easy to 'torque' to make the preferred answer seem like the only answer, just as your own attempts to maximize utility may be torqued by your desires or fears.

There are always 'stakeholders' for a corporation. This means that decisions that might seem to best benefit the finances of the corporation might also be damaging to workers or the cities where the companies locate their operations or pull up stakes. Surely each of us have our own set of stakeholders, both known and unknown to us, whose lives will be impacted by our decision. Don't we have a duty to try to consider them?

I'd say this idea of utility is too narrow and too easily misused. I would prefer broad axioms like: take care of your physical and mental health, treat others with respect, fulfil your duties to your family and neighbors, try to learn and grow. I don't think following utility as an axiom would help you much, if at all. Rather, I think it could lead to disaster for lots of folks, just as seeking the best possible return for a corporation often leads to disaster (see: today's banking crisis).

Your axioms should be in place and rather unaffected by the particular circumstances of a given scenario. If your axiom is 'utility', this is too flexible and almost reduces to 'whatever I want must be right'. If your axiom is 'try not to damage the planet', then your axiom will guide your action instead of following your whims. Your axiom should make you less short-sighted or self-centered, not more.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Samana Johann
Posts: 324
Joined: June 28th, 2022, 7:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by Samana Johann »

It's wise to ask knowledgeable: "What, if I am doing it, leads to long term happiness" and "What, if I stop doing it, leads to long term happiness", good housholder. As deeds (by body, speech, mind) are the causes of one's world of experiences.
User avatar
Steamy
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: March 12th, 2023, 9:56 pm

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by Steamy »

First of all, recall that I define utility to include every possible feeling and every possible 'weighting' of these emotions in your utility, with this, every potential preference can be reached. This differs from usual definitions of utility, whereby only a fraction of potential wants is considered.
chewybrian wrote: March 13th, 2023, 7:09 pm I would compare your axiom to one that is omnipresent in the world of finance. The CEO or CFO attempts to maximize shareholder equity. Every decision is viewed through that lens (another way to look at it is to take the decision that gives you the best expected return after weighting for risk).
The attempt to maximise shareholder equity cannot be compared to my utility axiom. Why? Because not every preference for running the company is included in shareholder equity maximisation, such as a potential want of the CEO to do good in the world, while the utility axiom does include such preferences. Of course, the incentives of maximising shareholder equity usually vastly other weigh other preferences, but there are still many cases in which the assumption of shareholder equity maximisation does not hold.

It is also the case that when equity maximisation holds, it can be derived from my utility axiom.
In the present, every human prefers higher levels of utility to lower levels of utility. For this CEO, the emotions of (attempting to) maximise shareholder equity are preferred to the emotions that would occur from not maximising shareholder equity (examples include lower job security, lower bonuses, feelings of regret). Therefore in the present moment (each present moment where the CEO is maximising equity), the CEO 'decides' to maximise shareholder equity, since it means a higher level of utility in the present. This is not a 'decision' as a decision is normally defined. By doing nothing at a given moment, you are implying that the present utility you get from doing nothing is higher than you would get from doing something. You 'decide' to stick with the status quo. Obviously, the CEO never decides explicitly to maximise equity, it's implied. As the CEO changes nothing of this strategy throughout their time in office, it implies that they 'decided' to maximise equity at every single moment of their tenure.
chewybrian wrote: March 13th, 2023, 7:09 pm Short terms gains and long term gains may be at odds; maximizing short term gains might reduce long term gains, and vice versa. We all have limited information and biases that may be known or unknown to us.
You are correct, hence why the axiom specifies 'the present moment'. We would never do anything that does not maximise present utility. Again, you would have made a different 'decision' had you felt like it did not maximise present utility. Also remember that 'long term gains' are included in present utility, and weighted according to how much you value those gains.
chewybrian wrote: March 13th, 2023, 7:09 pm I'd say this idea of utility is too narrow and too easily misused. I would prefer broad axioms like: take care of your physical and mental health, treat others with respect, fulfil your duties to your family and neighbors, try to learn and grow. I don't think following utility as an axiom would help you much, if at all. Rather, I think it could lead to disaster for lots of folks
This idea of this axiom of utility is simply a foundation, from which other more useful results about life can be derived from. These general concepts you mention can all be derived from my axiom of utility (when they hold), like in the CEO example I gave earlier, so I would argue that my axiom of life is a much broader result than any of these axioms because it can be applied to any situation at any moment of any life.

So, what is less 'broad' about your 'axioms'? I would simply ask the following question to all of these statements: To what extent?
Yes, take care of your physical and mental health, but to what extent? How much should I 'take care' of my physical and mental health before I reach the stage where I wrap myself up in cotton wool?
Yes, treat others with respect, but how much respect is too much respect? How long until I am walked over by people because I am respecting their thoughts and feelings too much? Are there no possible counterexamples of giving respect?
Yes, fulfil duties to your family and neighbours, but again, how much is too much? At what point does fulfilling my duties limit me from growing myself personally and professionally?
Of course, everyone is capable of answering these questions to an extent, but the point I want to make is that these answers are ambiguous; there are no perfect answers to any of these questions, and that's what makes these 'axioms' incomplete, so they can't be axioms to start with.

I agree though that this axiom on its own is not particularly useful to people. It's so broad and general that it could mean anything, to anyone. Again, it's simply a foundation, from which other results can be derived from.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by chewybrian »

Steamy wrote: March 13th, 2023, 9:49 pmIn the present, every human prefers higher levels of utility to lower levels of utility...

We would never do anything that does not maximise present utility...
Of course, people prefer the most utility. Just as clearly, we take all sorts of choices that are not in our own best interest. This is because we have cognitive biases, irrational desires and fears, and lack complete information. The meth addict thinks he is maximizing his utility by taking drugs. The 'maximize utility' axiom wouldn't stop him. However, an axiom like 'protect your health' might cause him to pause and reconsider. The axiom should prevent you from doing something foolish even when it seems like the right thing at the time. This kind of axiom tells us that if our plan of action includes something like destroying our health, we've probably made a mistake in the math that told us the plan would maximize our utility. We shouldn't assume that we know what will be best for us. Rather we should assume that we are apt to make lots of mistakes.
Steamy wrote: March 13th, 2023, 9:49 pmSo, what is less 'broad' about your 'axioms'?...
They don't include an implied presumption that I already understand all impacts of my decision on myself and the world. To use the axiom 'protect your health', the would-be meth head only needs to see that taking the drugs has a terrible impact upon his health. He doesn't have to weigh every possible factor that could be impacted by the decision (as if he had perfect knowledge, perfect reason, etc.), as he would to follow your axiom.
Steamy wrote: March 13th, 2023, 9:49 pmI agree though that this axiom on its own is not particularly useful to people. It's so broad and general that it could mean anything, to anyone.
I agree with that.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Steamy wrote: March 12th, 2023, 10:31 pm I define utility to be one's overall satisfaction at any given moment.

[...]

Here is the axiom I propose: In the present moment, every human prefers higher levels of utility to lower levels of utility. [...] Since this principle of utility is so universal, I propose it as an axiom for life.
To me, "utility" is "use" or "usefulness", so when you write "utility", I have assumed "satisfaction", as you define it. Of course we prefer things that are useful to things that are not. But I can't see a reason to adopt the pursuit of satisfaction as a life-guide. What benefits does the adoption of satisfaction-chasing bring to us, philosophical or otherwise? 🤔

In fairness, I can see that "satisfaction" here is used as a synonym for happiness, contentment or fulfilment, and these are all things that many would consider desirable enough to pursue. But I think I have done nothing more than state the obvious in my previous sentence, yes? What is the significance of satisfaction, that makes it so much more desirable, specifically, not in the general sense that all desirable things are, er, desirable?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by Thomyum2 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 14th, 2023, 10:08 am
Steamy wrote: March 12th, 2023, 10:31 pm I define utility to be one's overall satisfaction at any given moment.

[...]

Here is the axiom I propose: In the present moment, every human prefers higher levels of utility to lower levels of utility. [...] Since this principle of utility is so universal, I propose it as an axiom for life.
To me, "utility" is "use" or "usefulness", so when you write "utility", I have assumed "satisfaction", as you define it. Of course we prefer things that are useful to things that are not. But I can't see a reason to adopt the pursuit of satisfaction as a life-guide. What benefits does the adoption of satisfaction-chasing bring to us, philosophical or otherwise? 🤔

In fairness, I can see that "satisfaction" here is used as a synonym for happiness, contentment or fulfilment, and these are all things that many would consider desirable enough to pursue. But I think I have done nothing more than state the obvious in my previous sentence, yes? What is the significance of satisfaction, that makes it so much more desirable, specifically, not in the general sense that all desirable things are, er, desirable?
I agree and was actually just thinking a variation of the same thing. Given the definitions, it seems like the proposed axiom is essentially stating that 'humans prefer those things that are their preferences', hence a tautology. Not sure where one can go from there philosophically.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Steamy
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: March 12th, 2023, 9:56 pm

Re: Utility as an axiom for life?

Post by Steamy »

Thomyum2 wrote: March 14th, 2023, 12:11 pm I agree and was actually just thinking a variation of the same thing. Given the definitions, it seems like the proposed axiom is essentially stating that 'humans prefer those things that are their preferences', hence a tautology. Not sure where one can go from there philosophically.
Those are very good points to make. The axiom is so general, that it intuitively seems little practical use can be made of it. Of course, for one to logically derive new and useful information, one usually needs multiple premises, not just one. But I hope that by incorporating other properties of utility's properties, I can show that this axiom, and indeed my description of utility in general can be used to generate more interesting insights, which can be applied on a universal basis.

First, maybe an axiom that captures the idea better would be:
"In the present moment, humans always choose higher levels of utility to lower levels of utility"
or in other terms, we always choose what we prefer.
Then the axiom is not stating that we prefer a combination of utility, which is in itself defined by being more preferred than a lower level of utility. Instead, 'choose' indicates that we always act upon our preferences for higher utilities.

Now recall a problem that came up earlier when it was posed that statements such as 'take care of your physical and mental health' and 'fulfil your duties to your family and neighbours' could be classed as potential axioms of life. The problem was that such statements, while useful as guidelines for improvement, are subject to interpretation on to what extent they should be followed. For statements like these, it isn't so much a problem practically speaking, but for advice that we give and receive on a day-to-day basis, these 'To what extent?' interpretations are much more important to consider.

Here is the next axiom I propose:
"There exists an ideal amount(s) of application of any principle on any life, that will lead to a maximal benefit on experienced utility."
An axiom of balance, if you will.
You may find it easier to think of this as an extension to the sayings 'everything in moderation' and 'too much of a good thing is a bad thing'

I define a 'principle' as a specific structure/framework for approaching anything, whether that be specific situations or life in general.

Okay, let's unpack this axiom. What is the impact of applying a principle on your life? At any given moment in time, you choose the action that you most prefer, but this preference is subject to many principles (eg: wanting to be in good health). Applying a new principle to this bundle of already existing principles may alter your choices slightly, and a different choice that you make in the present will change the utility you experience afterwards. Indeed, this is why experienced utility is impacted, as well as present utility.
Note: I define the experienced utility as the sum of all future present utilities.

How does there exist an ideal amount of this? There are three possibilities, either, the principle is totally useless meaning its optimal usage is none at all. Another is, the principle is useful no matter how much it is applied. The final possibility is somewhere in the middle, in that the principle is useful sometimes, and not so useful other times. All non-trivial principles of interest have the property of the final possibility. Why is it impossible that principles follow the second possibility? If a principle did, you would be able to follow it to the fullest extent at every moment, and experience no downsides. Even with the principles that people take closest to heart, they are still used slightly differently from moment to moment (eg: principles to do with religion are not as salient when you are laughing with friends, compared to when in prayer), implying that tradeoffs still exist with a high enough usage.

Let me illustrate the applications of this axiom with an example,
"Hard work pays off"

Straight away, we know from the axiom of balance that an ideal balance exists between hard work and everything else, so there must exist a point at which hard work doesn't pay off. Working harder may not be worth it if for example you are not recognised for your hard work, your hard work does not contribute too much or if working smarter would yield better results.
Although, the motivation behind such a phrase should be recognised. We know an ideal balance of hard work exists, but most people apply this principle less than they should, that is, they don't work hard enough. We say it to remind people that hard work is indeed important, so hopefully, they will work harder to reach a more ideal level of hard work.
Similarly, if we notice someone is working too hard, we may remind them that rest is important, again, so they hopefully reconsider working too hard, and adjust to a more optimal level of hard work.

Here is another example, where the existence of a balance is not so obvious,
"Be yourself"

We are told constantly that we should more act like ourselves, in order to stand out more from the crowd, and not have the burden of hiding our true selves from other people. Indeed, for much of the population, this is good advice.
Again, we know from our axiom that an optimal balance of 'being ourselves' exists. Why?
For a subset of the population, acting like themselves may mean breaking social norms, social cues, or just generally, doesn't involve much social interaction. In many cases, these characteristics are deeply frowned upon, or not beneficial at all.
Engaging in small talk and acting professionally is not at all like some people, but is essential for building many relationships, and careers. Professional situations are definitely situations in which, being yourself is counterproductive.

While people implicitly know that balances exist (eg: of hard work and relaxation), it is not exploited enough. By explicitly knowing an optimal balance exists, you can much more critically estimate what this optimal balance is, where you are right now with respect to this balance, and form strategies to try to adjust to this optimal balance.
When people try to apply a principle, they try to incorporate the principle somewhat into their lives, but don't step back and look at the bigger picture. Why am I following this principle? In a perfect world, how much should I use this principle? Okay, but am I absolutely sure, why is the perfect usage of this principle not possibly higher or lower than this level? What manageable steps can I take to build up to this optimal level?

What are the key takeaways? When you seek to analyse any principle, whether that be to do with the advice you hear on a day-to-day basis, tips on self-improvement or whatever, you should ask yourself: What is the ideal utilisation of this principle in my life? In other people's lives?
While utility didn't need to be defined to show the general idea of this axiom of balance, it did help to provide a foundation, so that I could form a more rigorous analysis of the axiom's origin.
Again, that's what the axiom of utility's purpose is, to provide a stepping stone to derive more useful and interesting insights.

Appendix:
A comment on the proof of this axiom,
I implied that the usefulness of a principle can be modelled by a smooth continuous curve, with the utilisation of a principle (pu) on the x-axis measured in the number of moments in which the principle is used (can define a moment as the smallest time we can consciously perceive, around 100ms) and utility gained (ug) on the y-axis. Indeed, because the maximum amount we can utilise a principle is finite, by the extreme value theorem, a maximum point of utility gained must exist.
In reality though, this is not how we can model utility from the usage of a principle. It is just a useful simplification that makes the proof simpler and more intuitive.

The optimal balance of principle utilisation must consider combinations of utilisation, not just the amount a principle is applied. Why? Obviously, working hard when at 20 has a different payoff from working hard at 60 or 70, when in the simple model, the marginal utility is the same.
Next, I define the problem of finding an optimal balance more precisely:

Experienced utility gained by applying principle p at a given moment (EUG) = present utility gained in the first moment (PUG1) + present utility gained in the second moment (PUG2) + ... + PUGn
Where n represents the last moment of a person's life.
The total experienced utility gained/lost from applying principle p in a person's life (TEUG) is the sum of all EUG values for every moment that principle p was applied.
We wish to prove that at least one maximum possible value for TEUG exists when considering all possible combinations of EUG values.

By observing that a finite number of TEUG combinations exist, it is intuitive that a maximum value should exist. (Although I haven't seen an exact proof explicitly)
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021