Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:20:41.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AGAINST MORAL HEDGING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2015

Ittay Nissan-Rozen
Ittay Nissan-Rozen*
Affiliation:
The Department of Philosophy and the PEP Program, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel. Email: [email protected]; URL: http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~ittay/.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

It has been argued by several philosophers that a morally motivated rational agent who has to make decisions under conditions of moral uncertainty ought to maximize expected moral value in his choices, where the expectation is calculated relative to the agent's moral uncertainty. I present a counter-example to this thesis and to a larger family of decision rules for choice under conditions of moral uncertainty. Based on this counter-example, I argue against the thesis and suggest a reason for its failure – that it is based on the false assumption that inter-theoretical comparisons of moral value are meaningful.

Keywords

Moral uncertaintymoral hedgingrisk aversioninter-theoretical comparisons
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 349 - 369
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bradley, R. 2005. Bayesian Utilitarianism and probability homogeneity, Social Choice and Well-being 4: 221–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. and List, C.. 2009. Desire as belief revisited. Analysis 69: 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1991a. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1991b. Desire, belief and expectation. Mind 398: 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1999. Ethics out of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2009. Assessing risky social situations. CPNSS Working Paper, Vol. 5, no. 9. London: The Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science (CPNSS), London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, C. R. 1965. The Logic of Decision. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1988. Desire as belief. Mind XCVII: 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, T. 2000. Moral Uncertainty and its Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics. New York, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. 1995. Consistent Bayesian aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 66: 313–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissan-Rozen, I. 2012. Doing the best one can: a new justification for the use of lotteries. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 5: 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissan-Rozen, I. Forthcoming. A triviality result for the Desire-by-Necessity thesis. Synthese.Google Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2009. What to do when you don't know what to do. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 4: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2012. Moral uncertainty and the principle of equity among moral theories. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86: 580–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. 2002. Evaluation, uncertainty and motivation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5: 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weymark, A. J. 1991. A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen debate on utilitarianism. In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, J. and Roemer, J., 255–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar