Tiny probabilities and the value of the far future

Petra Kosonen (Population Wellbeing Initiative, University of Texas at Austin)

GPI Working Paper No. 1-2023

PDF Download

Morally speaking, what matters the most is the far future - at least according to Longtermism. The reason why the far future is of utmost importance is that our acts' expected influence on the value of the world is mainly determined by their consequences in the far future. The case for Longtermism is straightforward: Given the enormous number of people who might exist in the far future, even a tiny probability of affecting how the far future goes outweighs the importance of our acts' consequences in the near term. However, there seems to be something wrong with a theory that lets very small probabilities of huge payoffs dictate one's own course of action. If, instead, we discount very small probabilities to zero, we may have a response to Longtermism provided that its truth depends on tiny probabilities of vast value. Contrary to this, I will argue that discounting small probabilities does not undermine Longtermism.

Other working papers

Doomsday rings twice – Andreas Mogensen (Global Priorities Institute, Oxford University)

This paper considers the argument according to which, because we should regard it as a priori very unlikely that we are among the most important people who will ever exist, we should increase our confidence that the human species will not persist beyond the current historical era, which seems to represent…

Time discounting, consistency and special obligations: a defence of Robust Temporalism – Harry R. Lloyd (Yale University)

This paper defends the claim that mere temporal proximity always and without exception strengthens certain moral duties, including the duty to save – call this view Robust Temporalism. Although almost all other moral philosophers dismiss Robust Temporalism out of hand, I argue that it is prima facie intuitively plausible, and that it is analogous to a view about special obligations that many philosophers already accept…

In Defence of Moderation – Jacob Barrett (Vanderbilt University)

A decision theory is fanatical if it says that, for any sure thing of getting some finite amount of value, it would always be better to almost certainly get nothing while having some tiny probability (no matter how small) of getting sufficiently more finite value. Fanaticism is extremely counterintuitive; common sense requires a more moderate view. However, a recent slew of arguments purport to vindicate it, claiming that moderate alternatives to fanaticism are sometimes similarly counterintuitive, face a powerful continuum argument…