> The argument presented in the article, as well as ideas like the "utility monster" are based on the idea that the utility scales of different persons are comparable.
The article makes no implicit or explicit statement about how one defines a/the utility function, but I see no reason to believe the author thinks it's a universal function.
The article makes no implicit or explicit statement about how one defines a/the utility function, but I see no reason to believe the author thinks it's a universal function.