Egyptology and fanaticism.

Various decision theories share a troubling implication. They imply that, for any finite amount of value, it would be better to wager it all for a vanishingly small probability of some greater value. Counterintuitive as it might be, this fanaticism has seemingly compelling independent arguments in i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophical Studies Vol. 181; no. 8; pp. 1903 - 1924
Autor principal: Wilkinson, Hayden
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Aug2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=178777749&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 178777749
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318116
        4L8
      jtl: Philosophical Studies
      issn: 00318116
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2024
      vid: 181
      iid: 8
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        178777749
        10.1007/s11098-024-02180-0
      ppf: 1903
      ppct: 21
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 900KB
      tig:
        atl: Egyptology and fanaticism.
      aug:
        au: Wilkinson, Hayden
        affil: Global Priorities Institute, University of Oxford, Trajan House, Mill Street, OX2 0DJ, Oxford, UK
      su:
        Egyptology
        Fanaticism
        Ethics
        Risk aversion
        Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Egyptology
          Fanaticism
          Ethics
          Risk aversion
          Philosophy
      keyword:
        Egyptology objection
        Expected value theory
        Separability
        Unbounded utility
      ab: Various decision theories share a troubling implication. They imply that, for any finite amount of value, it would be better to wager it all for a vanishingly small probability of some greater value. Counterintuitive as it might be, this fanaticism has seemingly compelling independent arguments in its favour. In this paper, I consider perhaps the most prima facie compelling such argument: an Egyptology argument (an analogue of the Egyptology argument from population ethics). I show that, despite recent objections from Russell (Noûs, 2023) and Goodsell (Analysis 81(3):420–426, 2021), the argument's premises can be justified and defended, and the argument itself remains compelling.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Philosophical Studies
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N