Switch to: References

Citations of:

Pure Time Preference

Martin Peterson Rosemary Lowry

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):490-508 (2011)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Exploring Arbitrariness Objections to Time-Biases.Andrew J. Latham, Kristie Miller, Jordan Oh, Sam Shpall & Wen Yu - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association.details There are two kinds of time-bias: near-bias and future-bias. While philosophers typically hold that near-bias is rationally impermissible, many hold that future-bias is rationally permissible. Call this normative hybridism. According to arbitrariness objections, certain patterns of preference are rationally impermissible because they are arbitrary. While arbitrariness objections have been levelled against both near-bias and future-bias, the kind of arbitrariness in question has been different. In this paper we investigate whether there are forms of arbitrariness that are common to both kinds (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
‘Pure Time Preference’: Reply to Lowry and Peterson.Jens Johansson & Simon Rosenqvist - 2016 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (3):435-441.details A pure time preference is a preference for something to occur at one point in time rather than another, merely because of when it occurs in time. Such preferences are widely regarded as paradigm examples of irrational preferences. However, Rosemary Lowry and Martin Peterson have recently argued that, for instance, a pure time preference to go to the opera tonight rather than next month may be rationally permissible, even if the amounts of intrinsic value realized in both cases are identical. (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
Exploring Arbitrariness Objections to Time Biases.Andrew J. Latham, Kristie Miller, O. H. Jordan, Sam Shpall & Y. U. Wen - 2024 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 10 (3):588-614.details There are two kinds of time bias: near bias and future bias. While philosophers typically hold that near bias is rationally impermissible, many hold that future bias is rationally permissible. Call this normative hybridism. According to arbitrariness objections, certain patterns of preference are rationally impermissible because they are arbitrary. While arbitrariness objections have been leveled against both near bias and future bias, the kind of arbitrariness in question has been different. In this article we investigate whether there are forms of (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
(1 other version)Pure Time Preference: Reply to Johansson and Rosenqvist.Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson - 2016 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (3):442-445.details Johansson and Rosenqvist reject our argument for the rational permissibility of pure time preferences (PTP). Johansson and Rosenqvist's main objection is that where two options, X and Y, have equal intrinsic value, there will be a reason to be indifferent between X and Y, and therefore a reason to not hold a PTP for X or Y. In this reply, we argue that if two options have equal intrinsic value, it does not follow that you have a reason to be (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Are risk attitude, impatience, and impulsivity related to the individual discount rate? Evidence from energy-efficient durable goods.Sébastien Foudi - forthcoming - Theory and Decision:1-35.details Discounting is a manifestation of behavioral impulsivity, which is closely related to self-regulation processes. The decision-making process for intertemporal choices is governed by the inhibition of impulses, which can influence both risk and time-related attitudes. This paper utilizes self-reported measures of risk, impatience, and impulsivity attitudes to examine their impact on the implicit discount rate used when weighing the current purchase cost against future energy savings of appliances. It analyzes and tests the interplay between these attitudes using specific functional forms (...) Download Export citation Bookmark

1