Extended Agency and the Problem of Diachronic Autonomy

It seems to be a humdrum fact of human agency that we act on intentions or decisions that we have made at an earlier time. At breakfast, you look at the Taco Hut menu online and decide that later today you’ll have one of their avocado burritos for lunch. You’re at your desk and you hear the church bells ring the noon hour. You get up, walk to Taco Hut, and order the burrito as planned. As mundane as this sort of scenario might seem to be, philosophers have raised a problem in understanding it. If you are simply abiding by this morning’s decision, how are you acting autonomously? Your earlier self seems to be calling the shots; if you are just acting accordingly, without thinking through it or in some other way trying to ensure that the past decision conforms to your present standpoint, it is not clear how this amounts to an exercise of your present autonomous agency. It seems, rather, that your earlier self has succeeded in slaving you to her own purposes. She was the one who wanted (intended, judged it to be good, etc.) to have an avocado burrito. In simply following through, your current self seems to be just an automaton performing the commands left behind by your former self. Of course, you might not allow yourself to be shackled by your earlier self. You might refuse to follow anything but your own present judgments: you will only go to Taco Hut if this is what you judge you should do right now, and once at Taco Hut you will only eat the avocado burrito if that is what you want to eat once there. But if this is the way you generally operate, this seems to block your ability to make effective future-directed decisions. The puzzle, then, is one of explaining how the future self can do the bidding of her past self without losing her autonomy. We call this “the Problem of Diachronic Autonomy.” Philosophers raising this problem take it to show that there must be reasons or rational requirements to follow-through with our past decisions. According to these philosophers, we can only make sense of our diachronic autonomy if our past decisions put rational pressure on us to follow through. We argue that there is no Problem of Diachronic Autonomy. There is, in other words, no puzzling situation that needs explaining. Consequently, there is no need coming from this purported puzzle to think that our future-directed decisions generate reasons or rational requirements to follow through. The correct view of our diachronic autonomy is the “naïve” one: the “future self” can do the bidding of the “past self” without giving up its autonomy because, very simply, the past self is the same agent as the future self. I am acting autonomously when I get the avocado burrito, because I was the one who decided to get the burrito. I am acting on my own freely-formed decision

Climate Change and Individual Obligations: A Dilemma for the Expected Utility Approach, and the Need for an Imperfect View

This chapter concerns the nature of our obligations as individuals when it comes to our emissions-producing activities and climate change. The first half of the chapter argues that the popular ‘expected utility’ approach to this question faces a problematic dilemma: either it gives skeptical verdicts, saying that there are no such obligations, or it yields implausibly strong verdicts. The second half of the chapter diagnoses the problem. It is argued that the dilemma arises from a very general feature of the view, and thus is shared by other views as well. The chapter then discusses what an account of our individual obligations needs to look like if it is to avoid the dilemma. Finally, the discussion is extended beyond climate change to other collective impact contexts

Misery Loves Company

When one is going through a personal hardship, it is often comforting, or emotionally helpful, to hear from someone else who has gone through something similar. This is a common, familiar human phenomenon, but this chapter argues that it is philosophically puzzling. Unless one is in some sort of moment of vice, one would not want the other person to have suffered the hardship, and one should be pained to hear that they have. And yet the phenomenon is that hearing about their similar hardship makes one feel better, rather than worse. Why is that? The chapter considers a range of intuitive replies. It argues that while each might be part of the story, none resolves the puzzle. There remains a question as to why the phenomenon does not reflect a vice of insufficient care or concern for others. It then considers two possible answers, drawing on ideas from Adams and Bommarito, but argues that neither are satisfactory. The aim of the chapter is to bring out the puzzle and show that it is difficult to resolve. But it ends with a suggestion for a resolution

Consumer Choice and Collective Impact

Taken collectively, consumer food choices have a major impact on animal lives, human lives, and the environment. But it is far from clear how to move from facts about the power of collective consumer demand to conclusions about what one ought to do as an individual consumer. In particular, even if a large-scale shift in demand away from a certain product (e.g., factory-farmed meat) would prevent grave harms or injustices, it typically does not seem that it will make a difference whether one refrains from purchasing that product oneself. Most present-day food companies operate at too large a scale for a single purchase to make a difference to production decisions. If that is true, then it is not clear what point there is in refraining. This is “the problem of collective impact.” This chapter explores a range of proposals for how to solve this problem

The Morality of Collective Harm

Collective Harm Cases pervade the modern world. In these cases, people collectively cause harm, or fail to prevent it, but no individual seems to make a difference. For example, while climate change is caused by millions of people acting in certain ways (driving in cars, flying in planes, using coal-generated electricity, etc.), it seems that no individual such act will make a difference. Similarly, while the large-scale consumer patterns of wealthy nations can affect the lives of people in poorer nations, it is hard to believe that any individual purchase will make a difference for the worse. In cases of this sort, if it is true that no individual act will make a difference, it is unclear how we can say that anyone ought, or even has reason, to act otherwise. But if we cannot, this would be very troubling. Morality would be powerless in a wide array of cases in which it should have force. This is the Problem of Collective Harm.I argue that the key to solving the Problem of Collective Harm is to reject a standard, intuitive assumption that underlies it. The assumption is that if an act cannot make a difference with respect to an outcome, then it cannot play a morally significant, non-superfluous causal role in bringing that outcome about. Or, to put it another way, we must reject the assumption that helping to bring about an outcome requires making a difference to it. This assumption is highly natural, but I argue that it is mistaken and that once we see that it is mistaken, the central puzzle of the Problem of Collective Harm is resolved. Chapter 1 is devoted to setting out the problem and how I will approach it. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss a range of proposed solutions that have been put forth by others. The upshot of the critique of these views will be that we cannot solve the Problem of Collective Harm unless we can reject the assumption that helping requires making a difference. In Chapter 4, I turn to my positive proposal. There I give an account of what is required for an act to help to bring about an outcome, where this does not require being able to make a difference. I use this account to explain our reasons for action in Collective Harm Cases, and I give an error theory that explains why the standard assumption seems right, even though it is not. In Chapter 5, I highlight some noteworthy features of my proposal and some important questions about it that still need to be addressed

Racial Profiling And Cumulative Injustice

Many people believe that racial profiling is wrong. A 2004 Gallup poll of public attitudes on racial profiling found that most Americans regard it as unjustified for each context about which respondents were surveyed. For example, 67% expressed the opinion that police may never treat race as a predictor of crime when deciding whether to stop motorists on roads or highways. What exactly is it that makes racial profiling of this kind wrong? I believe that philosophers working in applied ethics and in legal and political philosophy have yet to work out a fully satisfactory answer to this question