When the aspects clash
A situation can be better in one respect and worse in another. The author uses two examples:
- for one individual: a stronger, shorter pain, or a weaker, longer pain?
- for several individuals: a few victims suffering a lot, or many victims suffering a little?
How do we decide? The chapter presents several methods.
Some methods
- Total incommensurability: the aspects can't be compared. Problem: in practice, we make these choices all the time, so it seems they can be compared.
- Monism: only one aspect matters (for example, only intensity). Problem: sometimes it seems better to help many victims; other times, to help whoever is worst off.
- Aggregative monism: adding up everything good or bad, like total suffering.
- Equal-weight pluralism: several aspects matter, all with the same weight.
- Pluralism with a trump: one aspect always beats the others, or beats them up to a point.
- Fixed or variable weights: the aspects have different weights, which can be fixed or can shrink as they grow.
- Maximin/leximin: always giving priority to whoever is worst off.
- Sufficiency: making sure everyone ends up above a certain line.
- Hybrid approaches, partial indeterminacy, and probabilistic aggregation: ways of combining methods or dealing with uncertainty about which method is right.
What's the point?
Each method has strengths and weaknesses. Knowing them helps us decide more carefully, for example when we have to choose between helping many animals a little or a few animals a lot.
In short
- Sometimes one option is better in one respect and worse in another.
- There are many methods for weighing these aspects.
- Knowing them helps us choose more carefully.