Can you clarify the difference between these two paragraphs? They read the same to me, but Iâm guessing Iâm missing something here.
(1) i.e. reflective preferences are always prioritized over revealed preferences whenever they disagree, then the result is practically the same, and we may as well ignore non-reflective beings.
(2) However, if we instead allow continuous tradeoffs between reflective preferences and revealed preferences, optionally ignoring revealed preferences in an individual when their reflective preferences are available, then we can get continuous tradeoffs between human and nonhuman animal preferences.
The first is meant to apply generally, even across beings, so that humansâ reflective preferences are always prioritized over nonhumansâ revealed preferences. We can break ties with nonhumansâ, but that will be so rare that it practically wonât matter.
The second means that sometimes we will prioritize revealed preferences over reflective preferences, and so sometimes the revealed preferences of nonhuman animals over the reflective preferences of humans.
The âoptionallyâ part just means that if a particular being has both revealed and reflective preferences about something, we could use those particular reflective preferences and ignore those particular revealed preferences, although othersâ revealed preferences may take priority. You could imagine that you have âtrue preferencesâ, and both revealed and reflective preferences are ways to try to measure them, but reflective preferences are always more accurate than revealed preferences, not that theyâre more important. So, itâs like saying we have two measures of some individualsâ welfare (both revealed and reflective preferences) and we just prefer to use the strictly more accurate one (revealed preferences) when both are available, but it doesnât mean the welfare of those for whom only the measure thatâs less accurate in humans (revealed preferences) is available matters less.
Can you clarify the difference between these two paragraphs? They read the same to me, but Iâm guessing Iâm missing something here.
(1) i.e. reflective preferences are always prioritized over revealed preferences whenever they disagree, then the result is practically the same, and we may as well ignore non-reflective beings.
(2) However, if we instead allow continuous tradeoffs between reflective preferences and revealed preferences, optionally ignoring revealed preferences in an individual when their reflective preferences are available, then we can get continuous tradeoffs between human and nonhuman animal preferences.
The first is meant to apply generally, even across beings, so that humansâ reflective preferences are always prioritized over nonhumansâ revealed preferences. We can break ties with nonhumansâ, but that will be so rare that it practically wonât matter.
The second means that sometimes we will prioritize revealed preferences over reflective preferences, and so sometimes the revealed preferences of nonhuman animals over the reflective preferences of humans.
The âoptionallyâ part just means that if a particular being has both revealed and reflective preferences about something, we could use those particular reflective preferences and ignore those particular revealed preferences, although othersâ revealed preferences may take priority. You could imagine that you have âtrue preferencesâ, and both revealed and reflective preferences are ways to try to measure them, but reflective preferences are always more accurate than revealed preferences, not that theyâre more important. So, itâs like saying we have two measures of some individualsâ welfare (both revealed and reflective preferences) and we just prefer to use the strictly more accurate one (revealed preferences) when both are available, but it doesnât mean the welfare of those for whom only the measure thatâs less accurate in humans (revealed preferences) is available matters less.