... just sprung to mind as a less loaded name than hedonistic util.

Has anyone encountered (or used) the term? Is it an improvement over ‘hedonistic utilitarianism’ for communicating that what we’re interested in isn’t necessarily a list specific emotions like 'the pleasure of sugar hitting your tastebuds’ or ‘the adrenaline rush of base-jumping’ or ‘the particular ache of hitting your funnybone’, but an underlying/mappable scale on which they lie?

It seems like it would have the benefit of avoiding associations with self-interested licentiousness etc. Perhaps it could also unite HUs with the brain-state-only PUs at least some of whom they seem to differ from only in terms of preferred terminology.

I just tried Googling it and hit one use - an entry in the (new!) Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism, by Svetoslav Danchev.

I like it from a PR perspective, but I'm worried that "valence" is too broad.

Too broad in what way?

From Wikipedia:

Valence, as used in psychology, especially in discussing emotions, means the intrinsic attractiveness (positive valence) or aversiveness (negative valence) of an event, object, or situation.

I think that’s exactly the concept that hedonistic utilitarians consider utility. Granted, there are a couple of Wikipedia entries on the use of the word in other subjects, but they’re so unrelated it seems unlikely people would confuse them or tarnish the idea with them.

Can't preferences also be described with valence?

The feeling of satisfaction gained from realising one is, but if that's the sole relevant component of your utilitarian theory then you're one of the people I mentioned above, whose views I can't tell apart from my own, except for the language in which we express them.

You could say "classical utilitarianism," "Benthamite utilitarianism," or "hedonic utilitarianism." Or "emotional utilitarianism" or "affective utilitarianism." You could call yourself an affective altruist.

I think the first three all have PR issues, Brian (and the first two have mildly different connotations to my eye than hedonistic). Are the second two a joke? I can't tell.

"Classical utilitarianism" to most people means "hedonistic utilitarianism." The Swiss folks started co-opting it to also mean "not negative utilitarianism" for lack of a better phrase. Now the connotations are muddied in our minds but I think not in the minds of most people external to our circles?

"Emotional utilitarianism" is not a joke and seems pretty good, unless people interpret it to mean "irrational, mood-driven utilitarianism." "Affective utilitarianism" was kind of a joke, but I think it could actually be the best, because it conveys "emotion" without the "irrational" connotations. The ability to call yourself an affective altruist is just a bonus.

Brian Tomasik wrote:"Emotional utilitarianism" is not a joke and seems pretty good, unless people interpret it to mean "irrational, mood-driven utilitarianism."

I think they really might. They might also take it to imply a focus on sentimentalities as a form of utility. The connotation with (physical) pleasure and pain isn't strong, even though technically the unpleasantness of pain is an emotion.

I agree with HT - it's certainly what the phrase makes me think of!

I think people also often associate 'classical utilitarianism' with specific claims Bentham and/or Mill made around it, esp Bentham's felicific calculus in its original (imprecise and future-discounting) form, perhaps also Mill's higher/lower pleasure distinction, and maybe a few other such details.

Talking about emotions can help avoid the suggestion that you're cold and calculating. Rather, you're warm and calculating.

Anyway, probably "affective util" is the best name.