Accommodating Options

Seth Lazar

doi:10.1111/papq.12252

Accommodating Options

Seth Lazar^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many of us think we have agent-centred options to act suboptimally. Some of these involve favouring our own interests. Others involve sacrificing them. In this paper, I explore three different ways to accommodate agent-centred options in a criterion of objective permissibility. I argue against satisficing and rational pluralism and in favour of a principle built around sensitivity to personal cost.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	233-255
Number of pages	23
Journal	Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
Volume	100
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12252
Publication status	Published - Mar 2019

Access to Document

10.1111/papq.12252

Cite this

@article{2f84e10c495f4a1a93c4da70aa8241a5,

title = "Accommodating Options",

abstract = "Many of us think we have agent-centred options to act suboptimally. Some of these involve favouring our own interests. Others involve sacrificing them. In this paper, I explore three different ways to accommodate agent-centred options in a criterion of objective permissibility. I argue against satisficing and rational pluralism and in favour of a principle built around sensitivity to personal cost.",

author = "Seth Lazar",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 The Author. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly {\textcopyright} 2018 University of Southern California and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",

year = "2019",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1111/papq.12252",

language = "English",

volume = "100",

pages = "233--255",

journal = "Pacific Philosophical Quarterly",

issn = "0279-0750",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accommodating Options

AU - Lazar, Seth

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Many of us think we have agent-centred options to act suboptimally. Some of these involve favouring our own interests. Others involve sacrificing them. In this paper, I explore three different ways to accommodate agent-centred options in a criterion of objective permissibility. I argue against satisficing and rational pluralism and in favour of a principle built around sensitivity to personal cost.

AB - Many of us think we have agent-centred options to act suboptimally. Some of these involve favouring our own interests. Others involve sacrificing them. In this paper, I explore three different ways to accommodate agent-centred options in a criterion of objective permissibility. I argue against satisficing and rational pluralism and in favour of a principle built around sensitivity to personal cost.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054306465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/papq.12252

DO - 10.1111/papq.12252

M3 - Article

SN - 0279-0750

VL - 100

SP - 233

EP - 255

JO - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly

JF - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly

IS - 1

ER -

Accommodating Options

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this