Prioritarianism, Risk, and the Gap Between Prudence and Morality
According to a prominent objection to prioritarianism, it inappropriately implies a gap between prudence and morality, even in single-person cases. Thus, according to prioritarianism, we should sometimes sacrifice an individual’s expected welfare in order to protect her from the risk of a worse outcome. The present chapter presents a critical discussion of this objection. It first provides a more precise account of axiological prioritarianism and what it implies for the relation between prudence and morality. Then it provides an account of four prioritarian theories that (unlike axiological prioritarianism) have implications for risky choices, namely ex ante prioritarianism, ex post prioritarianism, pluralist prioritarianism, and factualist prioritarianism. It then presents the objection that prioritarianism implies a gap between prudence and morality in single-person cases in greater detail, which includes explaining the extent to which this objection applies to the four different versions of prioritarianism mentioned above. Finally, the chapter defends the view that the prioritarian gap between prudence and morality is unproblematic, even in single-person cases.