Jeffrey Sanford Russell
University of Southern California
Should we make significant sacrifices to ever-so-slightly lower the chance of extremely bad outcomes, or to ever-so-slightly raise the chance of extremely good outcomes? *Fanaticism* says yes: for every bad outcome, there is a tiny chance of extreme disaster that is even worse, and for every good outcome, there is a tiny chance of an enormous good that is even better. I consider two related recent arguments for Fanaticism: Beckstead and Thomas's argument from *strange dependence on space and time*, and Wilkinson's *Indology* argument. While both arguments are instructive, neither is persuasive. In fact, the general principles that underwrite the arguments (a *separability* principle in the first case, and a *reflection* principle in the second) are *inconsistent* with Fanaticism. In both cases, though, it is possible to rehabilitate arguments for Fanaticism based on restricted versions of those principles. The situation is unstable: plausible general principles tell *against* Fanaticism, but restrictions of those same principles (with strengthened auxiliary assumptions) *support* Fanaticism. All of the consistent views that emerge are very strange.
Keywords fanaticism  axiology  risk  unbounded value  infinite value
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Risk and Rationality.Lara Buchak - 2013 - Oxford University Press.
Weighing Lives.John Broome - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1956 - Philosophy of Science 23 (2):166-166.

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The History and Philosophy of Fanaticism.Paul Katsafanas (ed.) - forthcoming - London: Routledge.
To Have Done with the Philosophical Cold War.Rodrigo Nunes - 2016 - Historical Materialism 24 (3):226-240.
Fanaticism, Toleration and Philosophy.John Passmore - 2003 - Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (2):211–222.
In Defense of Fanaticism.Hayden Wilkinson - 2022 - Ethics 132 (2):445-477.
Act Utilitarianism and the Moral Fanaticism Argument.Mark Timmons - 1984 - Philosophical Studies 46 (2):215 - 226.
The Phenomenon of Fanaticism.Zofia Rosińska & Grzegorz Czemiel - 2020 - Dialogue and Universalism 30 (2):159-164.
Fanaticism as a Worldview.Frank Chouraqui - 2019 - Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence 3 (1).
Group Fanaticism and Narratives of Ressentiment.Paul Katsafanas - forthcoming - In Leo Townsend, Hans Bernard Schmid, Michael Staudigl & Ruth Tietjen (eds.), The Philosophy of Fanaticism: Epistemic, Affective, and Political Dimensions. Routledge.
The Open Society and New Enemies.Han Goo Lee - 2018 - Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy 72:77-81.
Kant's Account of Practical Fanaticism.Rachel Zuckert - 2010 - In Benjamin Lipscomb & James Krueger (eds.), Kant's Moral Metaphysics: God, Freedom, and Immortality. De Gruyter. pp. 291.
Fanaticism and Sacred Values.Paul Katsafanas - 2019 - Philosophers' Imprint 19:1-20.
Intolerantie, onverschilligheid en eerbied.Joris L. Van Damme - 2004 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 66 (2):227-253.


Added to PP index

Total views
100 ( #111,190 of 2,463,235 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
100 ( #6,650 of 2,463,235 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes