New Philosophy Paper Says You Can Make Better Decisions Without Knowing Everything

Have you ever faced a tough choice—like taking a new job or moving to a new city—and felt paralyzed because you couldn't predict all the outcomes? A philosophical argument called the 'unawareness argument' says that because we never know all the possible consequences of our actions, we can never truly justify preferring one action over another. This would mean any choice we make is arbitrary. But a new paper by an author responding to Anthony DiGiovanni's work argues that this conclusion is false. The author shows that we can be justified in preferring one action over another, especially when we have a third option available or when we consider mixed actions, like flipping a coin to decide.

The key is to recognize that our ignorance doesn't have to paralyze us. The paper argues that even if we can't assign precise probabilities to outcomes, we can still make rational decisions. For example, if you're choosing between two charities and you're unsure which is better, but you have a third option that is clearly worse, you might be justified in preferring one of the first two based on other reasoning. Or you could mix actions: flip a coin to decide between two good options. This approach allows for justified preferences without needing complete information.

This matters because it validates our everyday decision-making. We often make choices without full knowledge, and this paper suggests that's okay—we can still be rational. It also has implications for effective altruism and other fields where people try to do the most good with limited information. The author's argument against the unawareness argument provides a philosophical foundation for making decisions under uncertainty, which is something we all do daily.

So next time you're agonizing over a decision, remember: you don't need to know everything to make a justified choice. Sometimes, considering a third option or even leaving it to chance can be a rational strategy.