Parity, Moral Options, and the Weights of Reasons

The (moral) permissibility of an act is determined by the relative weights reasons, or so I assume. But how many does a reason have? Weight Monism idea that reasons have single weight value. There just reasons. Pluralism holds at least two values and these aren't always equivalent. simplest versions hold each either equal to, weightier than, less weighty than every other reason. We'll see this simple view leads to paradox. We must complicate picture somehow. restrict my attention candidate complications. first Parity (Weight) Monism. This complicates relation allowing can be, as Ruth Chang would say, on par. like imprecise version it most familiar from axiological contexts in which we are comparing good options are. assumes that, when goodness par, then for those also Consider options, A B, involve different goods you can't get together. For sake illustration, let ‘A’ refer some altruistic action, e.g., prevention someone's broken leg. And ‘B’ preservation beauty, small stretch beautiful forest. Perhaps neither nor B seems better other, but they don't seem equally either. It doesn't follow their incomparable. Their might be imprecisely comparable being By relying parity, apparently provides attractive explanation moral (cases permissible φ do something else instead). alternatives good. explain why. choice between plausibly option. option precisely because has impressive explanatory resources. will argue, however, sometimes choose worse self-interested benefits over ones. example, buy car giving money effective charity. Since latter former, explained equality parity. need mechanism such cases options. One provided our second complication, Pluralism. Following Josh Gert, (my of) distinguishes reason's justifying requiring weight. is, roughly, making permissible. (permissible) required. When acts them required, well suited You permitted charitable donation, (have lots weight). require donating, bad required little no Hence, explains can't. Even if objection plausible, even bigger problem. designed puzzle normative significance improvements. Apparently, without contradicting itself (Cullity 2018; Rabinowicz 2008, 2012). appearances deceiving. goal paper two-fold: provide Pluralist improvements show should prefer sections reveal puzzling case can't, former latter. middle develop defend framework we'll apply final Pluralists easily In short, match Pluralism's power. phenomena meant explain. substitute position paradox ways. what call involves apparent tension ideas: pro tanto maximization certain stability involving Start with former. Altruistic (to prevent suffering11 simplicity, generally suppress parenthetical phrase. assume only suffering maximizing. pure not suppose Imani already great life give her nice gift nicer gift. Maybe could costlessly so. take stand this. ) maximizing: trade altruism off against morally relevant consideration, biggest benefit can. If save additional life, it. Simple Monism—thanks its commitment Monist Requirement—has problem accommodating Suppose (saving 5 lives) A+ same lives life). Intuitively, A. Requirement, true, says requirement. all 6 rather 5. Our respect rights maximizing sense respecting right, respectful R (respecting Jerry's right beaten up) R+ both his up insulted) R+. Requirement requirement, one. consider tradeoff rights. forced R, i.e., way five people beat Jerry. permissibly R. remains slightly more Jerry insult him, still action. Respect enough make one saving lives. stable insofar increases/decreases opposing convert into handle emerges implicit assignment It's Three Comparatives tells us there three possibilities concerning R: weightier, weighty. Its whatever do, requirements, entails, then, exactly Monism's makes fragile. Small breaks tie option, entails To conditional consider: premise follows assumption came discussion maximization. difference R+, third conjunction (the weighty) Substitutability Equality: “if items V, substituted comparisons V” (Chang 2017: 4). V concerns weight, principle things compare things. weighty, Analogously, since square root 25 equals 5, 10 greater 25. fourth application Requirement. Together four premises Any increase converts often stable. lives, him insulted too requirement altruism. improvements, pose liability generate requirements depends whether trading considerations. considerations, improvement. On hand, considerations (altruism vs respect), improvement isn't liable differential significance, theory able difficult both. holding ∼φ generates φ. rules out further Comparatives, avoid though traditional comparatives (weightier as). were comparative, perhaps combine thereby explaining Justification Intransitivity Paradox whenever intuitive judgments about conflict Transitivity. focus inspired Dorsey (2016: ch 4).22 These paradoxes go back early Parfit (1982: 130-2). Kamm another (1985; cf. 1996: 313-5 Temkin 2012: 195-7). below simplifies Dorsey's 4) recent version, harder resolve (nt 24). purchasing cost $17,000, allow accept satisfying participate your preferred leisure activities. long you've made sufficient efforts help others Yet, instead buying car, donate $17,000 Malaria Consortium. GiveWell (2020) estimates $3,373 donation foundation's chemoprevention program saves child death. $3,373×5 approximately car. people. Car Case deontic verdicts, Justifies Against 5Lives, 5Lives Respect, Required Car. verdicts true—as be33 See, 4), Muñoz (2021: 706-8), Archer (2016). Portmore (2017) plausible (294), he denies true plans (293-8). See nt 15 brief reply. —Justification Transitivity false. They replaced, what? as. guarantees transitive. problems suggest incommensurable, comparable, (cf. 6). Incommensurable comparative compares them. Chang's notion parity comparisons. sub-section, extend argument claim exists address (2002) originally used (e.g., value A, A+, R+?). Yet focused she uses (how pairwise choices view, tightly linked. correspondence allows derive exists. Recall kinds actions. up. respective Respectful insulted. Now Improvement Argument premises. Equality. good, That saying premises—P1, P2, P4—follow iff Better. Better P1 P2 P4 other. conclusion any comparatives. argues nonetheless comparative. concludes, specifically, par.66 Chaining takes intermediate conclusion—that other—to par (2002: §2). above defense premise, straightforward Improvements Would Make Requirements (§2.1) (§2.2) cannot cannot, substitutable. Equality precise comparison equal, (Substitutability Equality). imprecision introduce failures substitution. A+. failure substitution intransitive 15). intransitivity change gives Monism, (reasons value), Four Permissibility (permissible weighty), (required it). addition (2017), Cullity (2018: 431) sympathetic We've seen What do? At glance, nicely resolves Paradox. resulted combining Case: yet justify Respect. Permission intransitive, justification makes-it-permissible-to-act-against relation) intransitive. illustrates failure. proponent combined entail verdicts. impermissible why fails true. previous saw Why end here?88 Hurka Shubert answer commonsense morality “isn't thinking [imprecise] comparability reasons; recherché topic” (4). uncharitable. Monists needn't eccentric interest comparability. alternative simply fail worse. primary motivation existence ability §§5-6, despite appearances, appealing incommensurability undermines standard (and parity), leaving alternative. Furthermore, incommensurable features after all. Acting (aka A) acting R) states affairs. Arguably, (Terminology note: ‘R’ ‘5Lives’ ‘Respect’ respectively options.) 5Lives. Axiologically, far 1; 2021: 713, 12). sincerely believe special. proud yourself. Still, wildly exaggerates importance say Car, particularly poorly counterexample false, key credit really off. supererogatory words, optional optional. mysterious Car.99 betterness ways: distinction (Muñoz & Pummer forthcoming) commending (Little Macnamara 2020; Horgan Timmons 2010: §VI.B appeal use terminology). supererogation time. optional, am open par; Case. rest paper, transitive, nothing else, interesting abandon transitivity Spoiler: don't. added assignments status terms tried rejecting introduced gave progress, didn't everything looking for. draw? statuses explores possibility. develops defends approach assigns (JWφ) permissible, hard pushes toward permissibility. (RWφ) impermissibility. compound verdict anything else. Some requires applied That's work now. generalize §6.1111 Gert discussed several places (2003: 21-26, 2004, 2007: 549, 2015), addresses 2015: 264-5 especially appendix (if think dense, read Gert's appendix!). clear translate language endorses rejects Permissibility. so, strikes view. (§1.2), conceptual relationship suggests (§2.1). Case, Consider: vindicating matter plugging numbers Assignment's right? Assignment, willing tolerate balanced, Kagan 1985: 381). Assignment balanced (400 400 Such demanding, actions very few order trendy prerogatives) merely justifying, weight.1212 (2011: 5), (2012), (2021), Massoud p