The 3rd PE-DPS: Sattwick Dey Biswas on Utilitarianism and Quantification

“In this 3rd session of the series, Sattwick Dey Biswas (Institute of Public Policy, National Law School of India University) will present some of his work and will invite us for a critical discussion on utilitarianism and quantification. Come join us in this challenge!

Title:** "Reflections on utilitarianism and quantification" **

Abstract”
There are inherent issues with aggregating empirical information. Working with Bentham’s principle of aggregation, Alexander and Peñalver (2012) claimed two things must be in place to be called utilitarian theory. First, the utility must be quantifiable as cardinal value, and second, the utility must have an interpersonal comparison. The cardinal value principle states whether Esmeralda prefers a chocolate ice cream over a vanilla or vice versa. Bentham stresses that the information should indicate which flavour a person likes the most and, at the same time, how much more he or she (others) prefers it to the alternatives.

For interpersonal comparison, we need to ensure that ‘a unit of pleasure experienced by one must be the same as an equivalent unit of pleasure experienced by another.’ If Esmeralda likes all the flavours of ice cream equally and with the same intensity, then Bentham’s utility must be able to indicate how Erika’s desire for ice cream differs from Esmeralda’s. At a higher level, the method should be able to compare the pleasure Esmeralda derives from ice cream in Oslo with the pleasure Erika derives from travelling to Uganda during Christmas. Such trivial questions are at the heart of every discussion making, including but not restricted to valuation. The existing theories want to generate large data, reasonably so, and aggregate them, nevertheless, struggle during production of numbers itself.

Reference:
Sen, A., and B.A. Williams, eds. 1982. Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, G.S., and E.M. Peñalver. 2012. An Introduction to Property Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.