Aggregation in an Infinite, Relativistic Universe

Author:

Wilkinson HaydenORCID

Abstract

AbstractAggregative moral theories face a series of devastating problems when we apply them in a physically realistic setting. According to current physics, our universe is likely infinitely large, and will contain infinitely many morally valuable events. But standard aggregative theories are ill-equipped to compare outcomes containing infinite total value. So, applied in a realistic setting, they cannot compare any outcomes a real-world agent must ever choose between. This problem has been discussed extensively, and non-standard aggregative theories proposed to overcome it. This paper addresses a further problem of similar severity. Physics tells us that, in our universe, how remotely in time an event occurs is relative. But our most promising aggregative theories, designed to compare outcomes containing infinitely many valuable events, are sensitive to how remote in time those events are. As I show, the evaluations of those theories are then relative too. But this is absurd; evaluations of outcomes must be absolute! So we must reject such theories. Is this objection fatal for all aggregative theories, at least in a relativistic universe like ours? I demonstrate here that, by further modifying these theories to fit with the physics, we can overcome it.

Funder

Fulbright Australia

Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research

Australian Research Training Program

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Logic,Philosophy

Reference35 articles.

1. Arntzenius, F. (2014). Utilitarianism, decision theory and eternity. Philosophical Perspectives, 28(1), 31–58.

2. Arrow, K. (1999). Discounting, morality, and gaming. Discounting and Intergenerational Equity (pp. 13–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Askell, A. (2019). Pareto principles in infinite ethics. In PhD dissertation, New York University.

4. Bostrom, N. (2011). Infinite ethics. Analysis and Metaphysics, 10(2011), 9–59.

5. Broome, J. (2004). Weighing lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Population ethics in an infinite universe;Philosophical Studies;2023-10-04

2. Cesàro average utilitarianism in relativistic spacetime;Social Choice and Welfare;2023-07-01

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3