[howscrewedami]

I'm having issues understanding this:

> let’s assume that the utility gain for the gifted son from living in the suburbs would be larger than the utility gain for the disabled son from living in the city. A pure utilitarian, then, must choose the suburbs.

Everything's okay so far. But then he says this:

> Nagel’s view is this: if you say that you would live in the city for the sake of your disabled son, despite it being the case that moving to the city creates more utility in total, you are not a utilitarian

Didn't the author just say moving to the suburbs creates more utility in total?? And now he's saying moving to the city is what creates more utility?

[notinty]

Yeah I had to reread it a few times, it's just a mistake.

Of course maybe the kid being more accessible to doctors might increase the doctors' utility, but that's not what he meant.

[samglover97]

Author here, thanks for catching that error.