[EM] difficulty of interpersonal comparisons in utility

[James Green-Armytage]

Gervase asked for comments on this paragraph:
>"The concept of cardinal utility suffers from the absence of an objective 
>measure of utility when comparing the utility gained from consumption of
>a 
>particular good by one individual as opposed to another individual.  For 
>this reason, neoclassical economics abandoned utility as a foundation for 
>the analysis of economic behaviour, in favour of an analysis based upon 
>preferences [i.e. rankings]."

	I think that the key point in this paragraph is "comparing the utility
gained ... by one individual as opposed to another individual".
	It is not hard for me to say "I prefer Nader to Gore, and Gore to Bush,"
and for Joe Schmo to say "I prefer Bush to Gore, and Gore to Nader." But
it is harder for me to have a basis to say something like "I prefer Gore
to Bush *more* than Joe Schmo prefers Bush to Gore. It may be true, but it
is hard to find out whether or not it's true, especially on a large scale.
You can ask people how much they care, but if saying that they don't feel
strongly means that their vote is simply reduced to a fractional value, it
seems unlikely that people will make such an admission.
	However, I may point out that it might be somewhat easier to say that "I
prefer Gore to Bush more than *I* prefer Nader to Gore." Thus, I think
that it is more possible to prioritize your own preferences in comparison
to one another than to prioritize your preferences in comparison to the
preferences of another person.

Gervase asked:
>In the terms of my definition of Cardinal Ratings, does this mean that 
>"perfect" cannot really be defined?

	I can't really imagine a candidate so perfect that it would be impossible
to have a better one. Such a candidate would have to achieve some sort of
divine status, I suppose.

James