以下是「知魚之樂」的出處及譯文:
莊子與惠子游于濠梁之上，莊子曰：條魚出遊從容，是魚之樂也，惠子曰：子非魚，安知魚之樂？莊子曰：子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？惠子曰：我非子，固不知子矣，子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂，全矣。莊子曰：請循其本，子曰汝安知魚樂雲者，既已知吾知之而問我，我知之濠上也。
譯文：
藝術家莊子和名學家惠施在濠水岸邊散步。莊子隨口說道：“你看河裡那些舒鰭擺尾輕鬆遨遊的魚，比我們人還要快樂呢！”好鬥而愛挑剔語言和思維錯誤的惠施說：“你不是魚，怎麼知道魚是快樂的呢？”莊子也開玩笑地反唇相譏：“你不是我，怎麼知道我不知道魚的快樂？”惠施見莊子想回避問題，不肯輕易放棄，乘勢追擊道：“我不是你，當然不知道你；你也不是魚，所以也不知道魚──我的邏輯無懈可擊吧！”莊子不甘於服輸，強辯道：“請你回到談話的開頭──你問我：‘你怎麼知道魚是快樂的？’你這麼問，說明你已經承認我知道魚的快樂，所以才會問我怎麼知道的。可見，你再說我不知道魚的快樂，就違反了你的所謂邏輯。告訴你，我是在濠水岸邊，知道魚是快樂的。”
沉思良久，仍未想出答案，請經濟學高手解答一下我的問題
「知魚之樂」中，請以經濟學角度看我們能否知道魚是否快樂?(功用極大化)(15分)
2008-09-15 6:06 pm
回答 (2)
2008-09-16 5:06 am
✔ 最佳答案
Utility is only an arbitrary assignment of numbers to rank options. It is not a measure of welfare or happiness. Also happiness itself is unobservable. It is not what economists are trying to explain. Instead, economists assert how people behave (constrained maximising) in order to explain and predict observable human choices.In utility analysis there is no way we know whether an individual whose behaviour we seek to explain is or is not happy. All we can say is whether the indiviudla choose to something or not to do. If we throw some fish food into a pond and can predict beforehand that the fish will go after the food, we can say the fish prefers or choose to have than not to have the food, and we may well assign utility numbers to different kinds of fish food and their quantities.
2008-09-15 21:07:20 補充：
Reply with reference to AL MARKING SCHEME answer
2008-09-15 9:18 pm
This question is about the utility analysis. Since even the same good or staffs, but everyone must have different feeling or enjoyful about it. So that's why you cannot understand how enjoyful for a fish. And you can find the answer by using indifference cuver. Please refer to the following link for more detail.
收錄日期: 2021-04-15 18:56:23
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080915000051KK00482