# Individual utilities of life satisfaction reveal inequality aversion unrelated to political alignment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07793 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.07793/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 89 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16244/) (2024)
- [AGI Safety Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01109/) (2018)
- [Developing and Evaluating a Design Method for Positive Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01499/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How should well-being be prioritised in society, and what trade-offs are people willing to make between fairness and personal well-being? We investigate these questions using a stated preference experiment with a nationally representative UK sample (n = 300), in which participants evaluated life satisfaction outcomes for both themselves and others under conditions of uncertainty. Individual-level utility functions were estimated using an Expected Utility Maximisation (EUM) framework and tested for sensitivity to the overweighting of small probabilities, as characterised by Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). A majority of participants displayed concave (risk-averse) utility curves and showed stronger aversion to inequality in societal life satisfaction outcomes than to personal risk. These preferences were unrelated to political alignment, suggesting a shared normative stance on fairness in well-being that cuts across ideological boundaries. The results challenge use of average life satisfaction as a policy metric, and support the development of nonlinear utility-based alternatives that more accurately reflect collective human values. Implications for public policy, well-being measurement, and the design of value-aligned AI systems are discussed.