Fairness and randomness in decision-making: the case of decision thresholds.

IF 1.3 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Synthese Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-18 DOI:10.1007/s11229-025-05091-7
Kate Vredenburgh
{"title":"Fairness and randomness in decision-making: the case of decision thresholds.","authors":"Kate Vredenburgh","doi":"10.1007/s11229-025-05091-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper defends the role of lotteries in fair decision-making. It does so by targeting the use of decision thresholds to convert algorithmic predictions and classifications into decisions. Using an account of fairness from John Broome, the paper argues that decision thresholds are sometimes unfair, and that lotteries would be a fairer allocation method. It closes by dealing with two objections. First, it deals with the objection that lotteries should only be used to break ties in cases where individuals' claims are equally strong. Here, the paper gives a new argument for Broome's view, targeting decision criteria that are arbitrary and highly standardized. It then defends the arguments of the paper against the objection that lotteries are not morally superior to other methods of arbitrary choosing.</p>","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"206 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12177002/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Synthese","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05091-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper defends the role of lotteries in fair decision-making. It does so by targeting the use of decision thresholds to convert algorithmic predictions and classifications into decisions. Using an account of fairness from John Broome, the paper argues that decision thresholds are sometimes unfair, and that lotteries would be a fairer allocation method. It closes by dealing with two objections. First, it deals with the objection that lotteries should only be used to break ties in cases where individuals' claims are equally strong. Here, the paper gives a new argument for Broome's view, targeting decision criteria that are arbitrary and highly standardized. It then defends the arguments of the paper against the objection that lotteries are not morally superior to other methods of arbitrary choosing.

决策的公平性与随机性:以决策阈值为例。
本文为彩票在公平决策中的作用进行了辩护。它通过使用决策阈值将算法预测和分类转换为决策来实现这一目标。本文采用约翰•布鲁姆(John Broome)关于公平性的解释,认为决策阈值有时是不公平的,而彩票将是一种更公平的分配方法。它通过处理两个反对意见来结束。首先,它处理了反对意见,即彩票只应用于在个人索赔同样强大的情况下打破关系。在这里,这篇论文为布鲁姆的观点提供了一个新的论据,针对的是武断和高度标准化的决策标准。然后,它为论文的论点辩护,反对反对意见,即彩票在道德上并不优于其他任意选择的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Synthese
Synthese 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
13.30%
发文量
471
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Synthese is a philosophy journal focusing on contemporary issues in epistemology, philosophy of science, and related fields. More specifically, we divide our areas of interest into four groups: (1) epistemology, methodology, and philosophy of science, all broadly understood. (2) The foundations of logic and mathematics, where ‘logic’, ‘mathematics’, and ‘foundations’ are all broadly understood. (3) Formal methods in philosophy, including methods connecting philosophy to other academic fields. (4) Issues in ethics and the history and sociology of logic, mathematics, and science that contribute to the contemporary studies Synthese focuses on, as described in (1)-(3) above.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信