On the Normative Status of Future Bias

While philosophers disagree about the permissibility of future-bias, they have typically agreed that non-philosophers will at least judge that future-bias is permissible, and probably judge that it is obligatory as well. Recent empirical work supports this supposition: people overwhelmingly judge that they themselves ought to prefer, of a negative event, that it lies at a certain point in the past rather than an equidistant point in the future. This finding can potentially be marshalled into an argument that people ought to be future-biased, which proceeds via the idea that people’s normative judgments in these matters are a good (if defeasible) guide to the normative facts, or that the best explanation for people having such normative judgements is that there are normative reasons to be future-biased. Such arguments rely on the idea that people’s normative judgements in this regard are consistent. So far, however, the only normative judgements that have been investigated concern people’s judgements about their own first-personal preferences about negative events in conditions of equality. This paper presents the results of a study that probes these judgements much more broadly, including both first- and third-personal judgements, in conditions of equality and inequality, about positive and negative events, as well as people’s normative judgements about other people’s preferences (what we call other-directed normative judgements).