Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T06:03:45.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FAIR CHANCE AND MODAL CONSEQUENTIALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2015

H. Orri Stefánsson
H. Orri Stefánsson*
Affiliation:
Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Collge d’études mondiales, 190 avenue de France, 75013 Paris, France. Email: hlynur.orri@gmail.com. URL: www.orristefansson.is.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This paper develops a Multidimensional Decision Theory and argues that it better captures ordinary intuitions about fair distribution of chances than classical decision theory. The theory is an extension of Richard Jeffrey’s decision theory to counterfactual prospect and is a form of Modal Consequentialism, according to which the value of actual outcomes often depends on what could have been. Unlike existing versions of modal consequentialism, the multidimensional decision theory allows us to explicitly model the desirabilistic dependencies between actual and counterfactual outcomes that, I contend, are at the heart of common intuitions about fair distribution of chances.

Keywords

fairnesscounterfactualsdecision theoryconsequentialism
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 371 - 395
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

Arneson, R. J. 1990. Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 158–194.Google Scholar
Bolker, E. D. 1966. Functions resembling quotients of measures. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 124: 292–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2012. Multidimensional possible-world semantics for conditionals. Philosophical Review 121: 539–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. and Stefánsson, H. O. 2015. Counterfactual desirability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchak, L. 2013. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P. 1967. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility: Comment. Journal of Political Economy 75: 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, P. 1987. Consequentialism and the Independence axiom. In Risk, Decision and Rationality, ed. Munier, B., 503–516. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hammond, P. 1988. Consequentialist foundations for expected utility theory. Theory and Decision 25: 25–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1982/1977. Morality and the theory of rational behaviour. In Utilitarianism and Beyond, ed. Sen, A. and Williams, B., 39–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1990/1983. The Logic of Decision. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H. 2012a. A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part A. Review of Symbolic Logic 5: 26–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. 2012b. A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part B. Review of Symbolic Logic 5: 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell (revised edition).Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1952. Probability, utility, and the independence axiom. Econometrica 20: 670–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics, Revised edition. New York, NY: Dover Publication.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in Logical Theory, ed. Rescher, N.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefánsson, H. O. 2014. Humean supervenience and multidimensional semantics. Erkenntnis 79: 1391–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar