David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 20 (2):307-330 (2004)
We address the question of how finitely additive moral value theories (such as utilitarianism) should rank worlds when there are an infinite number of locations of value (people, times, etc.). In the finite case, finitely additive theories satisfy both Weak Pareto and a strong anonymity condition. In the infinite case, however, these two conditions are incompatible, and thus a question arises as to which of these two conditions should be rejected. In a recent contribution, Hamkins and Montero (2000) have argued in favor of an anonymity-like isomorphism principle and against Weak Pareto. After casting doubt on their criticism of Weak Pareto, we show how it, in combination with certain other plausible principles, generates a plausible and fairly strong principle for the infinite case. We further show that where locations are the same in all worlds, but have no natural order, this principle turns out to be equivalent to a strengthening of a principle defended by Vallentyne and Kagan (1997), and also to a weakened version of the catching-up criterion developed by Atsumi (1965) and by von Weizsäcker (1965). Footnotes1 For valuable comments, we would like to thank Marc Fleurbaey, Bart Capéau, Joel Hamkins, Barbara Montero, Tim Mulgan, and two anonymous referees for this journal.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Marcus Pivato (2014). Additive Representation of Separable Preferences Over Infinite Products. Theory and Decision 77 (1):31-83.
Similar books and articles
Paul Kabay (2005). Is the Status Principle Beyond Salvation? Toward Redeeming an Unpopular Theory of Hell. Sophia 44 (1):91-103.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1986). What is an Infinite Expression? Philosophia 16 (1):45-60.
Peter Vallentyne (2009). Infinite Utility and Temporal Neutrality. Utilitas 6 (02):193-.
Donniell Fishkind, Joel David Hamkins & Barbara Montero (2002). New Inconsistencies in Infinite Utilitarianism: Is Every World Good, Bad or Neutral? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (2):178 – 190.
Andreas Hasman & Lars Peter Østerdal (2004). Equal Value of Life and the Pareto Principle. Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):19-33.
Peter Vallentyne (1993). Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (2):212 – 217.
Joel David Hamkins & Barbara Montero (2000). Utilitarianism in Infinite Worlds. Utilitas 12 (01):91-.
Peter Vallentyne (1995). Infinite Utility: Anonymity and Person-Centredness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (3):413 – 420.
Peter Vallentyne & Shelly Kagan (1997). Infinite Value and Finitely Additive Value Theory. Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):5-26.
Peter Vallentyne (2004). Infinite Utilitarianism: More Is Always Better. Economics and Philosophy 20 (2):307-330.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #135,321 of 1,098,976 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #175,054 of 1,098,976 )
How can I increase my downloads?