Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T10:23:09.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VALUE AND UNACCEPTABLE RISK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2005

GUSTAF ARRHENIUS
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
WLODEK RABINOWICZ
Affiliation:
Lund University

Abstract

Consider a transitive value ordering of outcomes and lotteries on outcomes, which satisfies substitutivity of equivalents and obeys “continuity for easy cases,” i.e., allows compensating risks of small losses by chances of small improvements. Temkin (2001) has argued that such an ordering must also – rather counter-intuitively – allow chances of small improvements to compensate risks of huge losses. In this paper, we show that Temkin's argument is flawed but that a better proof is possible. However, it is more difficult to determine what conclusions should be drawn from this result. Contrary to what Temkin suggests, substitutivity of equivalents is a notoriously controversial principle. But even in the absence of substitutivity, the counter-intuitive conclusion is derivable from a strengthened version of continuity for easy cases. The best move, therefore, might be to question the latter principle, even in its original simple version: as we argue, continuity for easy cases gives rise to a sorites.

Type
Essay
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)