Each hemoglobin can bind to a maximum of _________ oxygen mo…
Questions
Eаch hemоglоbin cаn bind tо а maximum of _________ oxygen molecules and can also bind to a maximum of ___________ carbon dioxide molecules
Pаscаl’s Wаger and Mоdern Pоlitical Theоry: Utilitarianism Pascal’s Wager and the Epicurean themes in his argument also connect to modern political theory. That’s why this week is titled Ancient/Modern because both Montaigne and especially Pascal are useful to bring our story forward to today. One of the most prominent modern political theories is known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is strongly connected to the creation of the modern academic discipline of economics, and shares with Epicureanism the fundamental belief that people are motivated by moving towards pleasure and away from pain. Pleasure, or sometimes happiness, in modern economics is known as “utility” and utilitarianism as an ethical doctrine simply argues that the best policies for governments to pursue are those that will lead to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is different from Epicureanism in that it is a properly modern theory, meaning that it is both normative and scientific, and that it is oriented towards collective decision-making, not just individual happiness. It is also significantly different from Epicureanism in that it is a consequentialist theory: its concern is not with moral character or virtues, but simply with the consequences of actions. Those actions that maximize happiness are the right ones, and it doesn’t matter if individuals are ‘good’ in the sense of having certain socially-desirable character traits. For utilitarians, ethical decision-making is a pretty simple “calculation of interest” or “arithmetic of pleasure” in which the government simply looks at which decision will maximize utility by adding up pleasure to one side of the ledger, and pain to the other. Subtract the total pain (disutility) from pleasure (utility) and do the action that has the highest total. As Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”, and he did this all while sacrificing himself to save the Enterprise in Start Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Now, most modern utilitarians don’t think it’s necessary to require individuals to self-sacrifice to save the group, but it does have an interesting collectivist and egalitarian orientation. It is collectivist because what matters is maximizing the total amount of happiness (rather than human rights, cultural traditions, etc.), and it is egalitarian because everybody’s happiness counts equally. Remember here again the law of diminishing returns: more money doesn’t automatically lead to more happiness and, especially for the very rich, additional dollars have essentially zero happiness bump for them, but if redistributed to the poor, those same dollars would then create a huge happiness bump! Finally, contemporary philosophers are divided between what are known as “rule-utilitarian” and “act-utilitarian” approaches, the difference being that rule-utilitarianism advocates for a specific law or policy that will maximize happiness, while act-utilitarianism advocates for dealing with issues on a case-by-case basis. In this second view, the best answer even in very similar or equal situations may change, but in the first it will not. This distinction is not strongly relevant here, but if you ever take a class in philosophy, it is very likely to come up. Just as a utilitarian thought experiment, let’s take a look at a question of distributive justice. Say we decided to tax 10% of the total wealth of anyone who had more than 100 billion dollars in wealth and redistribute that money to people on the bottom 10% of the economic scale. To a utilitarian this would lead to a massive utility gain because there are very few people with 100 billion dollars or more (16 in the United States as of 2025, BusinessInsider, 2024); it’s hard to imagine they would lose all that much utility from the tax (would you really be that much sadder if you “only” had 90 billion dollars?); and the people who the money would go to would get a really big utility increase. These 16 people are collectively worth 2.8 trillion dollars, and 10% of that equals 280 billion dollars. If we divide that money by 34 million (10% of the population of the US) then each person would get a moderately sized sum of 8,235.29. But how much additional happiness would this money bring? The question depends on the baseline, i.e. how much someone is already earning. For the 771,000 homeless people in the United Staes, 8,235.29 might be a life-changing sum. Perhaps they could afford to start renting a room, find some stability, and maybe even get a job? Some, or many, of them might just do a bunch of drugs but well, that’s pleasure too! For many people who work, their yearly salary is between 15-30 thousand dollars a year. Imagine what they could do with 8 thousand! For them, the additional money is somewhere around a 25-50% money bump, and therefore would have an equivalent happiness increase of around that same amount. From a utilitarian point of view, there would be a massive arithmetic of pleasure increase from this policy. Now, in the real world we would have a much more nuanced way of doing something like this (maybe we’d spend money trying to get homeless persons off drugs before handing them a fat envelope of cash), but the point is only to demonstrate the utilitarian way of thinking, not to articulate the perfect utilitarian system. One of Blaise Pascal's most famous philosophical and theological exercises (these were not nearly as separate as they are today) is called Pascal's Wager, posthumously published as part of a larger work titled Pensées sur la religion et sur quelquels autres sujets, which in English means “Thoughts on religion and other subjects”. This Wager has strong marks of ancient Epicureanism and also modern utilitarianism; some have called it the first instance of what is known in economics as “decision theory”. which is strongly connected to modern utilitarianism through the idea of the calculation or interest or arithmetic of pleasure. In the Wager you see Pascal playing a similar game as the Epicureans by balancing long-term interest against short-term and advocating for a kind of tranquility of spirit as happiness, but you also see him using a clear consideration of possibilities and payoffs to inform decision-making. Pascal's Wager is a thought experiment about how a rationally self-interested individual (one who is simply calculating the biggest payoff for themselves) should approach the question of believing in God. By wager Pascal means you have to essentially bet—DraftKings style—on whether or not God exists. Rather than bet money, you bet your life in this world and what you have to gain (potentially at least) is eternal reward or punishment (or if God doesn’t exist, nothing). A (Very) Brief Introduction to How to Bet a Coin-Flip and Why Utilitarianism is Bunk Pascal at one point compares his view of the probability that God exists or does not exist to a coin-flip, or, in other words a 50-50 proposition. When he does this, he is using the tools of probability to think through the best payoff or outcome of the choice, based on how much there is to gain from each choice. The way probability works in a coin-flip game is quite simple. The chart below shows the “expected utility” (how much you are likely to gain) of playing the coin-flip game, based on the odds offered by the house (the person who flips the coin). Remember, the odds of heads or tails is exactly 50-50, so what matters in whether or not you play the game is how much you might win if you guess correctly. Your bet Odds of Winning House Odds Expected Utility 1$ 50-50 .50 -1 .50C 1$ 50-50 1-1 1$ 1$ 50-50 1.5-1 1.5$ 1$ 50-50 2-1 2$ The key factor here, again, are the odds the house is offering. Anything less than 1:1 is a good deal for the house, and a bad deal for you. If you bet 1$ in the hopes of winning 50 cents, but only win half the time, your expected utility is only 50 cents for every dollar you wager. Basically, through time you’re give up a dollar to gain 50 cents. It’s a bad deal and a rationally self-interested person should never take this bet. Slot machines and drug-store scratchers usually have about a 35-50 cent expected utility per dollar (at or lower than .50-1), but roulette (which is perfectly random with a bit of house lean in how the wheel is organized) is one of the highest in expected returns at about 95 cents per dollar (.95-1). With these odds in mind, rationally self-interested people should take none of these bets. This is exactly why they say “the house always wins” because in the real world, the casino makes sure the probabilities of all the games are in their favor. Sure, some people hit the jackpot but most crap out; the occasional underdog has a big victory in sports (and therefore a big payout by the casino to happy betters), but in the long-term underdogs are underdogs for a reason and in the house will eventually come out ahead. The break-even point in the coin toss game is 1:1. You bet 1$ to win 2$, and because you win half the time, your expected utility is the same as where you started: 1$. Even better, rather than deal, with the ups and downs of having to guess right, if you simply bet 50 cents on heads and 50 cents on tails, you’re guaranteed to stay even. This strategy of betting both sides of a wager is called “hedging your bets” and it is sometimes used to protect against a big loss. For example, let’s say you think the underdog will win the football game, so you bet 100$ at 10-1 odds for them to win. But, unsure if you’re comfortable losing a whole 100$, you also bet 100$ on the favored team at .75-1. So, you have now bet 200$, but if the longshot hits you win 1,000 dollars while if the favored team wins you win 175$, which means you only lose 25$. Let’s examine your expected utility here. For this exercise, it’s harder to determine the real odds of the game (as opposed to the house odds), but because you know about football, you think the real odds are better than the house odds, so you make the bet. Your bet House Odds Dollar Return 100$ 10-1 900$ (1,000$ winnings-100$ bet) 100$ .75-1 75$ (175$ winnings-100$ bet) So, because you hedged your bet, we need to look at the two probabilities together. In the first case, if you win the longshot bet, you take home will be 800$ (1,000$-200$), while in the second case, your 100$ bet nets you a 75$ profit to offset the 100$ you lost on the longshot, for a total loss of only 25$. This 50$ loss is better than if you had only bet the longshot and lost the full 100$. Again, this strategy is called hedging your bets. Also: don’t bet. The house always wins. Finally, to return to the coin-flip game. Anytime the house odds are greater than 2-1, a rationally self-interested person SHOULD bet because for every dollar bet, the expected utility is greater than a dollar. Of course, in the real world the house will never give you those odds! The house always wins. This same calculation of interest we see here is at the root of most modern economics, utilitarianism as an ethical doctrine, and Pascal’s Wager as a philosophical argument.
A 5-yeаr-оld child presents fоr а kindergаrten readiness examinatiоn. Which group of findings would most strongly suggest possible developmental delay requiring further evaluation? Requires help dressing and undressing Uses words appropriately but lacks full understanding of meaning Has difficulty swinging and climbing Counts to 10 Has a vocabulary of approximately 1,300 words