Value and Unacceptable Risk: Temkin's Worries about Continuity Reconsidered
Author
Summary, in English
Consider a transitive value ordering of outcomes and lotteries on outcomes, which satisfies substitutivity of equivalents and obeys ‘continuity for easy cases’, i. e., allows compensating risks of small losses by chances of small improvements. Temkin (2001) has argued that such an ordering must also - rather counter-intuitively - allow chances of small improvements to compensate risks of huge losses. In this paper, we show that Temkin's argument is flawed but that a better proof is possible. However, it is more difficult to determine what conclusions should be drawn from this result. Contrary to what Temkin suggests, substitutivity of equivalents is a notoriously controversial principle. But even in the absence of substitutivity, the counter-intuitive conclusion is derivable from a strengthened version of continuity for easy cases. The best move, therefore, might be to question the latter principle, even in its original simple version: As we argue, continuity for easy cases gives rise to a sorites.
Department/s
Publishing year
2005
Language
English
Pages
177-198
Publication/Series
Economics and Philosophy
Volume
21
Issue
2
Full text
- Available as DOC - 103 kB
- Download statistics
Document type
Journal article
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Topic
- Philosophy
Status
Published
ISBN/ISSN/Other
- ISSN: 0266-2671