Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modal Realism is a Newcomb Problem

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some philosophers worry that if modal realism is true, you have no reason to prevent evils. For if you prevent an evil, you’ll have a counterpart somewhere that allows a similar evil. And if you refrain, your counterpart will end up preventing the relevant evil. Either way one evil is prevented and one is allowed. Your act makes no difference. I argue that this is mistaken. If modal realism is true, you are in a variant of Newcomb’s Problem. And if Lewis’ view about Newcomb’s Problem is true, then your act does make a difference and you should prevent the evil.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl.

References

  • Adams, R. (1974). Theories of actuality. Nous, 8, 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, A., & Price, H. (2012). Arntzenius on ‘Why ain’cha rich?’. Erkenntnis, 77, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B. (2017). The moral objection to modal realism. Erkenntnis, 82, 1015–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A., & Harper, W. (1981). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In W. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs: conditionals, belief, decision, chance and time (pp. 153–192). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. (2003). The immorality of modal realism, or: how i learned to stop worrying and let children drown. Philosophical Studies, 114, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, T. (1981). Counterfactuals and Newcomb’s problem. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 331–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwich, P. (1987). Asymmetries in time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krakauer, B. (2012). Counterpossibiles. Dissertation.

  • Krakauer, B. (2013). What are impossible worlds? Philosophical Studies, 165, 989–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, J. (1991). Ensuring two bird deaths with one throw. Mind, 100, 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1968). Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1978). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Nous, 13, 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1979). Prisoner’s dilemma is a Newcomb problem. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8, 235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1981). Why ain’cha rich? Nous, 15, 377–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1984). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the referees and editors of Erkenntnis. Special thanks to Referee 2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA

    Scott Hill

Authors
  1. Scott Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Hill.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hill, S. Modal Realism is a Newcomb Problem. Erkenn 87, 2993–3005 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00336-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00336-y

Search

Navigation