Doing, Allowing, Gains, and Losses

This paper examines Kahneman and Tversky's standard explanation for preference reversal due to framing effects in the famous "Asian flu" case. It argues that, alongside with their "loss/no gain effect" account, an alternative interpretation, still consistent with the empiric...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ethical theory and moral practice
Main Author: Colombo, Camilla (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2018]
In: Ethical theory and moral practice
IxTheo Classification:NCA Ethics
ZD Psychology
Further subjects:B Loss / no gain effect
B Doing and Allowing
B Endowment effect
B Prospect Theory
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (Resolving-System)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1662929951
003 DE-627
005 20190619131647.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 190408s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s10677-018-9949-8  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1662929951 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1662929951 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Colombo, Camilla  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Doing, Allowing, Gains, and Losses  |c Camilla Colombo 
264 1 |c [2018] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This paper examines Kahneman and Tversky's standard explanation for preference reversal due to framing effects in the famous "Asian flu" case. It argues that, alongside with their "loss/no gain effect" account, an alternative interpretation, still consistent with the empirical data, amounts to a more reasonable psychological explanation for the preference reversal. Specifically, my hypothesis is that shifts in the baseline induce shifts in the agents' classification of the same action as "doing harm" rather than "allowing harm to occur", and that people are risk-seeking when it comes to avoid causing extra deaths-doing harm-and risk-averse when it comes to preventing more deaths-by the means of allowing other deaths to occur as a side effect. I then survey the two most influential concurrent accounts in the moral literature, with respect to the relation between the loss/no gain and the doing/allowing distinction: Horowitz's reductionist conclusion, which argues that the latter collapses into the former, and Kamm's rebuttal, which claims instead that the two distinctions can be pulled apart. I eventually explain why my interpretation differs from both these positions. 
650 4 |a Doing and Allowing 
650 4 |a Endowment effect 
650 4 |a Loss/no gain effect 
650 4 |a Prospect Theory 
652 |a NCA:ZD 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Ethical theory and moral practice  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1998  |g 21(2018), 5, Seite 1107-1118  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320527093  |w (DE-600)2015306-5  |w (DE-576)104558555  |x 1572-8447  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:21  |g year:2018  |g number:5  |g pages:1107-1118 
856 |u https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10677-018-9949-8.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via page says license)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9949-8  |x Resolving-System  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 21  |j 2018  |e 5  |h 1107-1118 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3420936362 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1662929951 
LOK |0 005 20191107115547 
LOK |0 008 190408||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442053747  |a ZD 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442052465  |a NCA 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL