Past Event: WGMP: Chris Howard (McGill Univ.)

Title: Goodness is Relative

Abstract:
It’s widely held that goodness and betterness (simpliciter) are impartial, agent-neutral evaluative properties. I argue that we should reject this and hold instead that they’re fundamentally agent-relative, such that whenever something is good or better, it’s good or better relative to some person or group. Holding that betterness is relative rather than neutral provides the best answer to a puzzle about fitting partiality. Plausibly, it can be fitting to be partial in our valuing attitudes. For example, even if all else is equal, it’s fitting for me to prefer the outcome where my partner is saved over the incompatible outcome where yours is. But if betterness is agent-neutral, the former outcome isn’t better. So, if betterness is neutral, it can be fitting for me to prefer an outcome that isn’t better. But that seems false: what’s better is what’s preferable and what’s preferable is what’s fitting to prefer. The answer is to reject that betterness is agent-neutral. The outcome where my partner is saved is better relative to me; the outcome where yours is saved is better relative to you. Hence, it’s fitting for me to prefer the former and for you to prefer the latter. It follows that goodness is relative, too.