What we together risk: three vignettes in search of a theory

For a PDF version of this post, see here.

Many years ago, I was climbing Sgùrr na Banachdich with my friend Alex. It's a mountain in the Black Cuillin, a horseshoe of summits that surround Loch Coruisk at the southern end of the Isle of Skye. It's a Munro---that is, it stands over 3,000 feet above sea level---but only just---it measures 3,166 feet. About halfway through our ascent, the mist rolled in and the rain came down heavily, as it often does near these mountains, which attract their own weather system. At that point, my friend and I faced a choice: to continue our attempt on the summit or begin our descent. Should we continue, there were a number of possible outcomes: we might reach the summit wet and cold but not injured, with the mist and rain gone and in their place sun and views across to Bruach na Frìthe and the distinctive teeth-shaped peaks of Sgùrr nan Gillean; or we might reach the summit without injury, but the mist might remain, obscuring any view at all; or we might get injured on the way and either have to descend early under our own steam or call for help getting off the mountain. On the other hand, should we start our descent now, we would of course have no chance of the summit, but we were sure to make it back unharmed, for the path back is good and less affected by rain.

Alex and I had climbed together a great deal that summer and the summer before. We had talked at length about what we enjoyed in climbing and what we feared. To the extent that such comparisons make sense and can be known, we both knew that we both gained exactly the same pleasure from reaching a summit, the same additional pleasure if the view was clear; we gained the same displeasure from injury, the same horror at the thought of having to call for assistance getting off a mountain. What's more, we both agreed exactly on how likely each possible outcome was: how likely we were to sustain an injury should we persevere; how likely that the mist would clear in the coming few hours; and so on. Nonetheless, I wished to turn back, while Alex wanted to continue.

How could that be? We both agreed how good or bad each of the options was, and both agreed how likely each would be were we to take either of the courses of action available to us. Surely we should therefore have agreed on which course of action would maximise our expected utility, and therefore agreed which would be best to undertake. Yes, we did agree on which course of action would maximise our expected utility. However, no, we did not therefore agree on which was best, for there are theories of rational decision-making that do not demand that you must rank options by their expected utility. These are the risk-sensitive decision theories, and they include John Quiggin's rank-dependent decision theory and Lara Buchak's risk-weighted expected utility theory. According to Quiggin's and Buchak's theories, what you consider best is not determined only by your utilities and your probabilities, but also by your attitudes to risk. The more risk-averse will give greater weight to the worst-case scenarios and less to the best-case ones than expected utility demands; the more risk-inclined will give greater weight to the best outcomes and less to the worst than expected utility does; and the risk-neutral person will give exactly the weights prescribed by expected utility theory. So, perhaps I preferred to begin our descent from Sgùrr na Banachdich while Alex preferred to continue upwards because I was risk-averse and he was risk-neutral or risk-seeking, or I was risk-neutral and he was risk-seeking. In any case, he must have been less risk-averse than I was.

Of course, as it turned out, we sat on a mossy rock in the rain and discussed what to do. We decided to turn back. Luckily, as it happened, for a thunderstorm hit the mountains an hour later at just the time we'd have been returning from the summit. But suppose we weren't able to discuss the decision. Suppose we'd roped ourselves together to avoid getting separated in the mist, and he'd taken the lead, forcing him to make the choice on behalf of both of us. In that case, what should he have done?

As I will do throughout these reflections, let me simply report by own reaction to the case. I think, in that case, Alex should have chosen to descend (and not only because that was my preference---I'd have thought the same had it been he who wished to descend and me who wanted to continue!). Had he chosen to continue---even if all had turned out well and we'd reached the summit unharmed and looked over the Cuillin ridge in the sun---I would still say that he chose wrongly on our behalf. This suggests the following principle (in joint work, Ittay Nissan Rozen and Jonathan Fiat argue for a version of this principle that applies in situations in which the individuals do not assign the same utilities to the outcomes):

Principle 1  Suppose two people assign the same utilities to the possible outcomes, and assign the same probabilities to the outcomes conditional on choosing a particular course of action. And suppose that you are required to choose between those courses of action on their behalf. Then you must choose whatever the more risk-averse of the two would choose.

However, I think the principle is mistaken. A few years after our unsuccessful attempt on Sgùrr na Banachdich, I was living in Bristol and trying to decide whether to take up a postdoctoral fellowship there or a different one based in Paris (a situation that seems an unimaginable luxury and privilege when I look at today's academic job market). Staying in Bristol was the safe bet; moving to Paris was a gamble. I already knew what it would be like to live in Bristol and what the department was like. I knew I'd enjoy it a great deal. I'd visited Paris, but I didn't know what it would be like to live there, and I knew the philosophical scene even less. I knew I'd enjoy living there, but I didn't know how much. I figured I might enjoy it a great deal more than Bristol, but also I might enjoy it somewhat less. The choice was complicated because my partner at the time would move too, if that's what we decided to do. Fortunately, just as Alex and I agreed on how much we valued the different outcomes that faced us on the mountain, so my partner and I agreed on how much we'd value staying in Bristol, how much we'd value living in Paris under the first, optimistic scenario, and how much we'd value living there under the second, more pessimistic scenario. We also agreed how likely the two Parisian scenarios were---we'd heard the same friends describing their experiences of living there, and we'd drawn the same conclusions about how likely we were to value the experience ourselves to different extents. Nonetheless, just as Alex and I had disagreed on whether or not to start our descent despite our shared utilities and probabilities, so my partner and I disagreed on whether or not to move to Paris. Again the more risk-averse of the two, I wanted to stay in Bristol, while he wanted to move to Paris. Again, of course, we sat down to discuss this. But suppose that hadn't been possible. Perhaps my partner had to make the decision for both of us at short notice and I was not available to consult. How should he have chosen?

In this case, I think either choice would have been permissible. My partner might have chosen Paris or he might have chosen Bristol and either of these would have been allowed. But of course this runs contrary to Principle 1.

So what is the crucial difference between the decision on Sgùrr na Banachdich and the decision whether to move cities? In each case, there is an option---beginning our descent or staying in Bristol---that is certain to have a particular level of value; and there is an alternative option---continuing to climb or moving to Paris---that might give less value than the sure thing, but might give more. And, in each case, the more risk-averse person prefers the sure thing to the gamble, while the more risk-inclined prefers the gamble. So why must someone choosing for me and Alex in the first case choose to descend, while someone choosing for me and my partner in the second case choose either Bristol or Paris?

Here's my attempt at a diagnosis: in the choice of cities, there is no risk of harm, while in the decision on the mountain, there is. In the first case, the gamble opens up a possible outcome in which we're harmed---we are injured, perhaps quite badly. In the second case, the gamble doesn't do that---we countenance the possibiilty that moving to Paris might not be as enjoyable as remaining in Bristol, but we are certain it won't harm us! This suggests the following principle:

Principle 2  Suppose two people assign the same utilities to the possible outcomes, and assign the same probabilities to the outcomes conditional on choosing a particular course of action. And suppose that you are required to choose between those courses of action on their behalf. Then there are two cases: if one of the available options opens the possibility of a harm, then you must choose whatever the more risk-averse of the two would choose; if neither of the available options opens the possibility of a harm, then you may choose an option if at least one of the two would choose it. 

So risk-averse preferences do not always take precedence, but they do when harms are involved. Why might that be?

A natural answer: to expose someone to the risk of a harm requires their consent. That is, when there is an alternative option that opens no possibility of harm, you are only allowed to choose an option that opens up the possibility of a harm if everyone affected would consent to being subject to that risk. So Alex should only choose to continue our ascent and expose us to the risk of injury if I would consent to that, and of course I wouldn't, since I'd prefer to descend. But my partner is free to choose the move to Paris even though I wouldn't choose that, because it exposes us to no risk of harm.

A couple of things to note: First, in our explanation, reference to risk-aversion, risk-neutrality, and risk-inclination have dropped out. What is important is not who is more averse to risk, but who consents to what. Second, our account will only work if we employ an absolute notion of harm. That is, I must say that there is some threshold and an option harms you if it causes your utility to fall below that threshold. We cannot use a relative notion of harm on which an option harms you if it merely causes your utility to fall. After all, using a relative notion of harm, the move to Paris will harm you should it turn out to be worse than staying in Bristol.

The problem with Principle 2 and the explanation we have just given is that it does not generalise to cases in which more than two people are involved. That is, the following principle seems false:

Principle 3  Suppose each member of a group of people assign the same utilities to the possible outcomes, and assign the same probabilities to the outcomes conditional on choosing a particular course of action. And suppose that you are required to choose between those courses of action on their behalf. Then there are two cases: if one of the available options opens the possibility of a harm, then you must choose whatever the most risk-averse of them would choose; if neither of the available options opens the possibility of a harm, then you may choose an option if at least one member of the group would choose it.

A third vignette might help to illustrate this.

I grew up between two power stations. My high school stood in the shadow of the coal-fired plant at Cockenzie, while the school where my mother taught stood in the lee of the nuclear plant at Torness Point. And I was born two years after the Three Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl tragedy happened as I started school. So the risks of nuclear power were somewhat prominent growing up. Now, let's imagine a community of five million people who currently generate their energy from coal-fired plants---a community like Scotland in 1964, just before its first nuclear plant was constructed. This community is deciding whether to build nuclear plants to replace its coal-fired ones. All agree that having a nuclear plant that suffered no accidents would be vastly preferable to having coal plants, and all agree that a nuclear plant that suffered an accident would be vastly worse than the coal plants. And we might imagine that they also all assign the same probability to the prospective nuclear plants suffering an accident---perhaps they all defer to a recent report from the country's atomic energy authority. But, while they agree on the utilities and the probabilities, they have don't all have the same attitudes to risk. In the end, 4.5million people prefer to build the nuclear facilities, while half a million, who are more risk-averse, prefer to retain the coal-fired alternatives. Principle 3 says that, for someone choosing on behalf of this population, the only option they can choose is to retain the coal-fired plants. After all, a nuclear accident is clearly a harm, and there are individuals who would suffer that harm who would not consent to being exposed to the risk. But surely that's wrong. Surely, despite such opposition, it would be acceptable to build the nuclear plant.

So, while Principle 2 might yet be true, Principle 3 is wrong. And I think my attempt to explain the basis of Principle 2 must be wrong as well, for if it were right, it would also support Principle 3. After all, in no other case I can think of in which a lack of consent is sufficient to block an action does that block disappear if there are sufficiently many people in favour of the action.

So what general principles underpin our reactions to these three vignettes? Why do the preferences of the more risk-averse individuals carry more weight when one of the outcomes involves a harm than when they don't, but not enough weight to overrule a significantly greater number of more risk-inclined individuals? That's the theory I'm in search of here.


  1. There are some interesting points in time in this article but I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There is some validity but I will take hold opinion until I look into it further. Good article, thanks and we want more!

  2. Wow, thanks, great article, but i don't think that I risk much.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Well you and alex had such memorable hiking in mountains. Alex seems to be very energetic person. cheapest digitizing

  5. Tanaman Hias Untuk Meja Hias , Barang apakah saja yang terdapat di atas meja riasmu? Supaya tidak sekedar dipenuhi perabotan make up serta skincare, kasih hiasan tanaman estetis yuk https://www.daftartanamanhias.web.id/! Tidak cuman enak diliat, tanaman hias pula berperan buat mood jadi bagus.

  6. I can't praise Programming Homework Help services enough, except for the previous order. It wasn't completed and sent in time. There were also a lot of mistakes and a few plagiarism issues, too, but I'm glad they came in and resolved the issue quite fast. Please make an effort to match experts with the right orders. The previous Python Homework Help must have been an amateur, though I appreciate his food knowledge. He only needs some experience to be perfect.

  7. I need Matlab Homework Help services but can't see the prices. So how do I go about it? It's a Matlab emergency order with 20 questions, and it's due in the next 2 days. The Matlab Assignment Help task is not so complicated, because I'm a first-year student and it's my end-semester exam. Please let me know how to go about the order placement process.

  8. I want to thank you for the extra effort put to ensure that I scored the best grade in my Matlab Assignment Help. I've established trust now, and I'll keep coming back to get more projects to be completed by their senior Matlab Homework Help experts. I'll share their good gospel with my friends, too. Thanks for the top mark

  9. virtual event Events have always been a major facet of many companies’ marketing strategy, but the data they produce hasn’t always lived up to the standards of larger digital marketing campaigns, where cost-per-click, bounce rates, and impressions are common dialogue. happy thanksgiving funny, happy saturday and birthday wishes

  10. The reason to go for online paper help is the way they present the thesis on the paper. They write down the best and responsive title for the topic, and then they move on to the introduction and body of the thesis. If required these professional thesis writers add on data analytics and other information to make the thesis look well researched. And at the end, they write down the abstract of the whole thesis, to convey a summarized idea of the thesis to the reader. This is how the whole process of writing a well-curated and researched thesis is offered by paper writing helpers.

  11. I was very nervous when I sent my first project for Statistics Homework Help online on their website. While it was my first experience with them, it was also my first-ever attempt to ask for such a service from an online source. Their experts then surprised me with peak grades and professional service. I also appreciate their timely delivery and easy-to-understand solutions. Meanwhile, I recommend that for all types of Statistics Assignment Help. Cheers!

  12. Finally graduating. My communications system assignment results are out and that is a clear indication that I am now all set to graduate. The Matlab assignment help expert who handled my paper did it well. I just feel like involving them in this graduation ceremony because they helped me a lot throughout the course. I will always recommend it to anyone looking for help. I cannot forget how desperately I was looking for experienced Matlab homework help solvers when I found them. Thanks for the four years we collaborated.

  13. Do you offer Economics homework help in Australia? I am looking for an Australian Economics assignment help expert for my economics assignment. I will not accept any tutor from another country. Therefore if you are not from Australia recommend one from me. My assignment relates to the Australian economy and only an Australian economist can handle it well.

  14. New Possible Proof of Commutation by Nathan Coppedge, repost anywhere if relevant

    PART 1

    [ .: means ‘therefore’, U stands for universal, := means 'necessary condition that’.]

    Some U

    Substantial U

    Law of U


    Law of some substance.

    Some substance = Substantial U


    Some U := U

    U : = Some

    ( U : = Some) := Some U


    U : = Some := Some U := U

    Some := U


    Where Law is Some

    Law = U


    If Laws must be Universal to be Laws,

    And Some = Substance,

    Substance is Law where there is Law and Substance and Some U


    Law == Universal Substance

    PART 2

    Sum U (Universal Laws1, 2, 3… to Infinity)

    .: Substantial Law

    Universal Substance

    .: Substantial Universe

    Law == Universal Substance (previous)

    .: Sum Universal Substances = Substantial Universe

    Universal Substance := Substance

    Substance := Universal

    (Substance := Universal) := Universal Substance

    Universal := Substance

    (Universal := Substance) := Universal

    (Substance := Universal) := Substance

    Universal := Substance := Universal Substance

  15. Wonderful goods from you, man. 바카라사이트I have understand your
    stuff previous to and you’re just extremely fantastic.
    I really like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you
    are saying and the way in which you say it. You make
    it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it smart. I can not
    wait to read much more from you. This is actually a great site.

  16. 스포츠토토 I think the information you share is very reasonable. At the very least, it was able to help me solve my problem. Thanks for sharing them, it helps me a lot.

  17. 스포츠중계 Hi, just wanted to say, I loved this post. It was practical. Keep on posting!

  18. Excellent Blog! I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this post.

  19. Appreciate the effort and information you have given in writing this article .

  20. Thanks for sharing such great information. It was really helpful to me. 스포츠토토

  21. Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular post! It is the little changes that produce the biggest changes. Thanks a lot for sharing! 온라인경마

  22. Very informative blog, This blog is very easy to understand when compared to other blogs. 슬롯머신

  23. Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is magnificent, let alone the content Feel free to visit my website; 먹튀검증가이드

  24. This is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great! Feel free to visit my website; 배트맨토토프로

  25. Quick Cure I will advise you to contact Dr Kham Herbal Remedies, Where all problems are solved without stress and delay. My family was getting drawn into sickness, We were all affected one after the other and medical prescriptions were not helping us. Till a friend directs us to contact Dr Kham for quick cure and total cleaning. Dr Kham is a miracle worker, It is never too late with Dr Kham contact him today with { dr.khamcaregiver@gmail.com } You can also contact him on Whatsapp +2348159922297, And Visit his website to know more about him at https://herbal-dr-kham.jimdosite.com/ with his Blog at https://drkhamcaregiver.blogspot.com/
    He also Cure
    1) HIV/Aids Virus
    2) Hepatitis A, B and C
    3) Herpes
    4) Cancer
    6) COPD
    7) STROKE.
    8) Erectile Dysfunction
    9) Trichinosis
    10) Chlamydia
    11) Gonorrhea
    12) HPV
    13) Syphilis

  26. Hello! Nice to meet you, I say . The name of the community I run is 안전놀이터추천, and the community I run contains articles similar to your blog. If you have time, I would be very grateful if you visit my site .

  27. That is a great tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
    Simple but very accurate info? Thank you for sharing this one.
    A must read post!
    Appreciating the hard work you put into your site and detailed information you present.
    Wonderful read!

  28. Allows you to download, install, and configure setup on your PC, Mac and smartphones as well. Canon ij setup is the software to install Canon printer wirelessly.
    ij.start canon

  29. Canon IJ Network Tool is a toolkit software with the options to keep a check on most of your Canon printer network settings and adjust them according to your requirements.

    Canon IJ Printer Utility is a complete software package meant to adjust and modify the configurations of your printer device as per the requirement. It is one of the essential utility software offered by Canon to ease your printer configuration alteration using a few clicks.

    is the Canon support link to get you the latest printer drivers and software to set up your PIXMA MG2500 or MG2520.

  30. Canon IJ Network Tool will get you through the network settings uninterruptedly. It is essentially required when you are attempting to get your printer connected to a different network because a new network tends to reset the printer’s existing network settings.The Canon IJ Printer Utility can be used to keep a check on your printer’s ink levels and cartridges and clean the ink tanks and paper feed rollers. Also, you can make adjustments to your Canon printer’s power settings.

  31. Once you are done with the driver setup via canon.com/ijsetup , you will have to insert a pile of pages into the printer tray for printing the documents..

    Visit ij.start.canon | ij.start canon and find out the best way to download Canon printer drivers.

    All-in-one Canon Inkjet printers are suitable for home, business, school, and others to improve productivity. You can easily set up your Canon printer through drivers from Canon.com/ijsetup , wireless connection, USB, and a few components.

  32. The ij.start.cannon setup process for every Canon model is almost similar, however the download through https //ij.start.cannon and http //ij.start.cannon installation process may differ. you can also visit canonsetup-canon.com/ijsetup website for same. Https //ij.start.cannon.Depending on your requirement, it offers a type printer including PIXMA, SELPHY, MAXIFY, etc. canon.com/ijsetup

  33. Hi there!

    I had a very nice experience in your blog, actually I found this post explanatory and informative, keep sharing the best content


    Salvatore from Visite as Cataratas do Iguaçu em Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná - Brasil

  34. Hi

    I just really wanted to say you have quite an amazing blog here. The way you write your articles makes it so easy for users to resonate. I’ve been looking for a good article about flight attendants when I stumbled on your article and it really brought my search to an end.
    I am impressed by the construct of your article. I too am a blogger and I know the kind of work you have to put into an article to make it this amazing. I really do hope you can take a second to check out my website on SCHOLARSHIPS.

    You should review;
    Jobs in UK .
    Unskilled Jobs in UK

  35. Great article and excellent layout. Your blog post deserves all of the positive feedback it’s been getting.


  36. Immensely thought out! This was the most detailed article I have read. Many readers would be interested on this site. I am looking forward for your daily posts.


  37. 스포츠중계

    Most of the time I don’t make comments on websites, but I’d like to say that this article really forced me to do so. Really nice post!

  38. I'm writing on this topic these days, casinosite, but I have stopped writing because there is no reference material. Then I accidentally found your article. I can refer to a variety of materials, so I think the work I was preparing will work! Thank you for your efforts.

  39. We are looking for a lot of data on this item. In the meantime, this is the perfect article I was looking for . Please post a lot about items related to 메이저사이트추천 !!! I am waiting for your article. And when you are having difficulty writing articles, I think you can get a lot of help by visiting my .

  40. Your blog is too much amazing! I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! Keep up the good work. very nice share

  41. I read your post well. It's full of very interesting stories.It's great how you can think of that.

  42. sucking masturbator cup has 7 gears 7 gears rotation and telescopic mode, this product has many ways to achieve orgasm.

  43. Thank you for writing this post, the rest of the site is really great. I always read your blog. You have my great post. Keep up the good and smart writing. Thanks so much for sharing. lasu jupeb admission portal

  44. I appreciate your amazing sharing. Your post has proven your dedication and the depth of your knowledge of the industry. Fabulous. I enjoy reading.

  45. I am really thankful for discovering such an amazing article. Its a wonderful and clear written information share. I do admire the words from the pretty contents of your blog. Thank you so much for sharing. geedystar college of health technology admission forms out


Post a Comment