4 found
  1. A Paradox for Tiny Probabilities and Enormous Values.Nick Beckstead & Teruji Thomas - forthcoming - Noûs.
    We begin by showing that every theory of the value of uncertain prospects must have one of three unpalatable properties. _Reckless_ theories recommend giving up a sure thing, no matter how good, for an arbitrarily tiny chance of enormous gain; _timid_ theories permit passing up an arbitrarily large potential gain to prevent a tiny increase in risk; _non-transitive_ theories deny the principle that, if A is better than B and B is better than C, then A must be better than (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  2. What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?Stephane Zuber, Nikhil Venkatesh, Torbjörn Tännsjö, Christian Tarsney, H. Orri Stefánsson, Katie Steele, Dean Spears, Jeff Sebo, Marcus Pivato, Toby Ord, Yew-Kwang Ng, Michal Masny, William MacAskill, Nicholas Lawson, Kevin Kuruc, Michelle Hutchinson, Johan E. Gustafsson, Hilary Greaves, Lisa Forsberg, Marc Fleurbaey, Diane Coffey, Susumu Cato, Clinton Castro, Tim Campbell, Mark Budolfson, John Broome, Alexander Berger, Nick Beckstead & Geir B. Asheim - 2021 - Utilitas 33 (4):379-383.
    The Repugnant Conclusion served an important purpose in catalyzing and inspiring the pioneering stage of population ethics research. We believe, however, that the Repugnant Conclusion now receives too much focus. Avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion should no longer be the central goal driving population ethics research, despite its importance to the fundamental accomplishments of the existing literature.
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  3. Bubbles under the Wallpaper: Healthcare Rationing and Discrimination.Nick Beckstead & Toby Ord - 2016 - In Helga Kuhse, Udo Schüklenk & Peter Singer (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology, 3rd Edition. Wiley. pp. 406-412.
    It is common to allocate scarce health care resources by maximizing QALYs per dollar. This approach has been attacked by disability-rights advocates, policy-makers, and ethicists on the grounds that it unjustly discriminates against the disabled. The main complaint is that the QALY-maximizing approach implies a seemingly unsatisfactory conclusion: other things being equal, we should direct life-saving treatment to the healthy rather than the disabled. This argument pays insufficient attention to the downsides of the potential alternatives. We show that this sort (...)
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  17
    Illingworth, Patricia;, Pogge, Thomas; and Wenar, Leif, eds. Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. 306. $45.00. [REVIEW]Nick Beckstead - 2012 - Ethics 122 (2):415-419.
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation