Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Expected Choiceworthiness and Fanaticism.Calvin Baker - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.
    Maximize Expected Choiceworthiness (MEC) is a theory of decision-making under moral uncertainty. It says that we ought to handle moral uncertainty in the way that Expected Value Theory (EVT) handles descriptive uncertainty. MEC inherits from EVT the problem of fanaticism. Roughly, a decision theory is fanatical when it requires our decision-making to be dominated by low-probability, high-payoff options. Proponents of MEC have offered two main lines of response. The first is that MEC should simply import whatever are the best solutions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Probability discounting and money pumps.Petra Kosonen - forthcoming - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
    In response to cases that involve tiny probabilities of huge payoffs, some argue that we ought to discount small probabilities down to zero. However, this paper shows that doing so violates Independence and Continuity, and as a result of these violations, those who discount small probabilities can be exploited by money pumps. Various possible ways of avoiding exploitation will be discussed. This paper concludes that the money pump for Independence undermines the plausibility of discounting small probabilities. Much of the discussion (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Non-Archimedean population axiologies.Calvin Baker - forthcoming - Economics and Philosophy.
    Non-Archimedean population axiologies – also known as lexical views – claim (i) that a sufficient number of lives at a very high positive welfare level would be better than any number of lives at a very low positive welfare level and/or (ii) that a sufficient number of lives at a very low negative welfare level would be worse than any number of lives at a very high negative welfare level. Such axiologies are popular because they can avoid the (Negative) Repugnant (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On Two Arguments for Fanaticism.Jeffrey Sanford Russell - 2023 - Noûs.
    Should we make significant sacrifices to ever-so-slightly lower the chance of extremely bad outcomes, or to ever-so-slightly raise the chance of extremely good outcomes? *Fanaticism* says yes: for every bad outcome, there is a tiny chance of extreme disaster that is even worse, and for every good outcome, there is a tiny chance of an enormous good that is even better. I consider two related recent arguments for Fanaticism: Beckstead and Thomas's argument from *strange dependence on space and time*, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations