Better than

Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

It is commonly held that rational preferences must be acyclic. There have, however, been cases that have been put forward as counterexamples to this view. This paper focuses on the following question: If the counterexamples are compelling and rational preferences can be cyclic, what should we conclude about the presumed acyclicity of the “better than” relation? Building on some revisionary suggestions concerning acyclicity and betterness, I make a case for hanging on to the presumption that “better than” is acyclic even if “is rationally preferred to” is not. As I explain, the divergence my view makes room for does not threaten to make “better than” judgments less relevant to choice than judgments about rational preference. To the contrary, it makes them more relevant. Toward the end of the paper, I extend my results to the relation “is morally better than” in light of the possibility that there might be moral preferability cycles.

Keywords

Better than Cyclic preferences Intransitive relations Morally better Puzzle of the self-torturer Rational preferences Temkin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Arif Ahmed, Kevin Baum, Christoph Fehige, Preston Greene, Christoph Lumer, Elijah Millgram, Michael Morreau, Stephan Padel, Mauro Rossi, Sarah Stroud, Christine Tappolet, Larry Temkin, Mariam Thalos, Mike White, and audience members at my talks at the University of Utrecht, Saarland University, and the University of Montreal for helpful discussions of earlier drafts of this paper. I am also grateful for the helpful anonymous comments I received and for supporting research funds from the University of Utah and from the Charles H. Monson Esteemed Scholar Award.

References

  1. Ahmed, A. (2014). Comment feed (02/26/14-02/28/14) on “The self-torturer and instrumental rationality” (02/26/14), in PEA Soup, http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2014/02/the-self-torturer-and-instrumental-rationality.html#more.
  2. Aldred, J. (2007). Intransitivity and vague preferences. Journal of Ethics, 11, 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P. (1993). The philosophy of intransitive preference. The Economic Journal, 103, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreou, C. (2007). There are preferences and then there are preferences. In B. Montero & M. D. White (Eds.), Economics and the mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Andreou, C. (2015). The real puzzle of the self-torturer: Uncovering a new dimension of instrumental rationality. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 45, 562–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andreou, C. (2016). Cashing out the money-pump argument. Philosophical Studies, 173, 1451–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arntzenius, F., & McCarthy, D. (1997). Self torture and group beneficence. Erkenntnis, 47, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broome, J. (1993). Can a Humean be moderate? In R. G. Frey & C. W. Morris (Eds.), Value, welfare, and morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Glover, J. (1975). It makes no difference whether or not i do it. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplemental Volume, 49, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kagan, S. (2011). Do i make a difference? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39, 105–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pollock, J. L. (1983). How do you maximize expectation value? Noûs, 17, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quinn, W. (1993). The puzzle of the self-torturer, in morality and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Temkin, L. S. (2012). Rethinking the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tenenbaum, S., & Raffman, D. (2012). Vague projects and the puzzle of the self-torturer. Ethics, 123, 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Voorhoeve, A., & Binmore, K. (2006). Transitivity, the sorites paradox, and similarity based decision making. Erkenntnis, 64, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations