Diffuse Harms and Fortuna’s WheelA diffuse harm hurts many people a little; a concentrated harm hurts one person a lot. Other things equal, diffuse harm seems less bad than its concentrated counterpart. For example, shortening a billion happy lives by a second each seems less bad than shortening one happy life by a billion seconds (\~30 years). But this attractive thought is surprisingly difficult to maintain. Although many problems for such a view are known, a particularly vivid difficulty arises in cases that involve a sequence of social positions, each very similar to the last, such as the Fortuna’s Wheel scenario. In such cases, it follows, from rather minimal assumptions, that diffuse harm is just as bad as its relevantly similar concentrated counterpart. In response, some may wonder whether the parity of diffuse and concentrated harms holds only in these special sequential cases. But it can be argued that the approximate parity of diffuse and concentrated harms extends well beyond such cases. Specifically, it can be argued that in many realistic cases, a diffuse harm will bring about an outcome approximately as bad as a relevantly similar concentrated harm. Diffuse harm is easily underestimated.
Zach Barnett
https://philosophy.nd.edu/people/faculty/zach-barnett/
Assistant Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Notre Dame
**About the Speaker:**
Zach received his PhD from Brown University in 2018. He joined Notre Dame in 2023, moving from the National University of Singapore, where he taught for five years. Zach mainly studies ethics, practical rationality, and epistemology, and he hopes that his work is convincing, surprising, and easy to understand. Current research interests include collective action problems, aggregation and risk, and followability of norms. His representative publications include "Rational Moral Ignorance" (2021) in *Philosophy and Phenomenological Research*, "Why You Should Vote to Change the Outcome" (2020) in *Philosophy & Public Affairs,* "Philosophy Without Belief" (2019) in *Mind*, and "No Free Lunch: The Significance of Tiny Contributions" (2018) in *Analysis*.
**\* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \***
This is a talk with audience Q&A presented by the University of Toronto's Centre for Ethics that is free to attend and open to the public. The talk will also be streamed online with live chat here [to be posted].
About the Centre for Ethics (http://ethics.utoronto.ca):
The Centre for Ethics is an interdisciplinary centre aimed at advancing research and teaching in the field of ethics, broadly defined. The Centre seeks to bring together the theoretical and practical knowledge of diverse scholars, students, public servants and social leaders in order to increase understanding of the ethical dimensions of individual, social, and political life.
In pursuit of its interdisciplinary mission, the Centre fosters lines of inquiry such as (1) foundations of ethics, which encompasses the history of ethics and core concepts in the philosophical study of ethics; (2) ethics in action, which relates theory to practice in key domains of social life, including bioethics, business ethics, and ethics in the public sphere; and (3) ethics in translation, which draws upon the rich multiculturalism of the City of Toronto and addresses the ethics of multicultural societies, ethical discourse across religious and cultural boundaries, and the ethics of international society.
The Ethics of A.I. Lab at the Centre For Ethics recently appeared on a list of 10 organizations leading the way in ethical A.I.: https://ocean.sagepub.com/blog/10-organizations-leading-the-way-in-ethical-ai