IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v35y2019i03p537-561_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Similarity and the trustworthiness of distributive judgements

Author

Listed:
  • Voorhoeve, Alex
  • Stefánsson, Arnaldur
  • Wallace, Brian

Abstract

When people must either save a greater number of people from a smaller harm or a smaller number from a greater harm, do their choices reflect a reasonable moral outlook? We pursue this question with the help of an experiment. In our experiment, two-fifths of subjects employ a similarity heuristic. When alternatives appear dissimilar in terms of the number saved but similar in terms of the magnitude of harm prevented, this heuristic mandates saving the greater number. In our experiment, this leads to choices that are inconsistent with all standard theories of justice. We argue that this demonstrates the untrustworthiness of distributive judgements in cases that elicit similarity-based choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Voorhoeve, Alex & Stefánsson, Arnaldur & Wallace, Brian, 2019. "Similarity and the trustworthiness of distributive judgements," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 537-561, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:35:y:2019:i:03:p:537-561_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267118000457/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:35:y:2019:i:03:p:537-561_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.