Our choice between actual and remembered pain and our flawed preferences

Philosophical Psychology 13 (1):111-119 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In Stephanie Beardman's discussion of the empirical results of Kahneman and Tversky and Kahneman, et al. on pain preference and rational utility decision she argues that an interpretation of these results does not require that false memory for pain episodes yields irrational preferences for future pain events. I concur with her conclusion and suggest that there are reasons from within the pain sciences for agreeing with Beardman's reinterpretation of the Kahneman, et al. data. I cite some of these theoretical and empirical reasons. I engage in some speculation as to why preferences for pain experiences, which harbor the Peak and Ending profile, make biological sense. Given the results from the pain sciences and the clinical practices based in them, I conclude that the medical ethical issue Kahneman raises and Beardman tries to solve is not a pressing moral demand on medical practitioners



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,685

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

39 (#352,294)

6 months
1 (#1,016,089)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The shape of a life and the value of loss and gain.Joshua Glasgow - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (3):665-682.

Add more citations

References found in this work

More pain or less?J. Broome - 1996 - Analysis 56 (2):116-118.

Add more references