>[!citation] >Bostrom, N. (2011). Infinite ethics. _Analysis and Metaphysics_, (10), 9–59. https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/infinite-ethics.pdf >[!abstract] >[[Consequentialism|Aggregative consequentialism]] and several other popular moral theories are threatened with paralysis: when coupled with some plausible assumptions, they seem to imply that it is always ethically indifferent what you do. Modern cosmology teaches that the world might well contain an infinite number of happy and sad people and other candidate value-bearing locations. Aggregative ethics implies that such a world contains an infinite amount of positive value and an infinite amount of negative value. You can affect only a finite amount of good or bad. In standard cardinal arithmetic, an infinite quantity is unchanged by the addition or subtraction of any finite quantity. So it appears you cannot change the value of the world. Modifications of aggregationism aimed at resolving the paralysis are only partially effective and cause severe side effects, including problems of “fanaticism”, “distortion”, and erosion of the intuitions that originally motivated the theory. Is the infinitarian challenge fatal? >[!tip] Significance >Bostrom examines the challenges that infinite cosmological scenarios pose to ethical theories, particularly aggregative consequentialism. This ethical framework suggests that the moral value of an action is determined by its overall contribution to the sum of good and bad outcomes. However, when considering a universe that may contain an infinite number of value-bearing entities (such as happy or suffering individuals), traditional methods of aggregation encounter significant difficulties. Key Points: > >- Infinitarian Paralysis: In a universe with infinite positive and negative values, any finite action we take seems negligible. Adding or subtracting a finite amount doesn't change the infinite total, leading to the unsettling implication that our actions have no moral significance—a state Bostrom terms "infinitarian paralysis." > >- Challenges to Aggregative Ethics: Bostrom explores how standard aggregative ethics struggle with infinite scenarios. For instance, if the universe contains an infinite number of happy and unhappy individuals, determining the net moral value of any action becomes problematic, as traditional arithmetic doesn't apply straightforwardly to infinities. > >- Potential Resolutions and Their Issues: The paper discusses various strategies to address these challenges, such as redefining aggregation methods or introducing alternative ethical principles. However, these solutions often lead to other problems, including "fanaticism" (giving undue weight to unlikely but vast outcomes) and "distortion" (misrepresenting the original motivations of the ethical theory). > >Bostrom concludes that while no definitive solution exists, acknowledging and understanding these challenges is crucial. This awareness prompts a reevaluation of ethical frameworks in the context of an infinite universe and encourages the development of more robust theories that can accommodate such complexities.