Infinite ethics and the limits of impartiality

Abstract

Beneficence—the part of morality concerned with promoting people's well‐being—is widely thought to be both agent‐neutral and impartial: it prescribes a common aim to all, and does not favor some individuals over others. This paper explores a problem for agent‐neutral, impartial beneficence from the perspective of “individualistic ethics” in the tradition of Harsanyi. The problem reveals that if we want only what is best for each of infinitely many individuals, and we are rational, then we must care about some individuals more than others. I conclude that, on the individualistic approach, value must be fundamentally agent‐relative.