Frank Hong
Biographic Data
| ID | 3866202 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Frank Hong |
| GIVEN NAMES | Frank |
| FAMILY NAME | Hong |
| SIGNATURE | HONG F |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Hong Kong |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6556-8348 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 7 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 0 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 7 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2021 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 0 |
Moral Facts Do Not Supervene on Non-moral Qualitative Facts
It is very natural to think that if two people, x and y, are qualitatively identical and have committed qualitatively identical actions, then it cannot be the case that one has committed something wrong whereas the other did not. That is to say, if x and y differ in their moral status, then it must be because x and y are qualitatively different, and not simply because x is identical to x and not identical to y. In this fictional dialogue between …
Paradoxes of infinite aggregation
There are infinitely many ways the world might be, and there may well be infinitely many people in it. These facts raise moral paradoxes. We explore a conflict between two highly attractive principles: a Pareto principle that says that what is better for everyone is better overall, and a statewise dominance principle that says that what is sure to turn out better is better on balance. We refine and generalize this paradox, showing that the proble…
Fanaticism and knowledge
It is estimated that five hundred billion dollars are spent on philanthropy every year. How should we spend those resources to do the most good? One possible answer, based on expected-value reasoning, is that we should spend those resources “fanatically” on interventions that can possibly produce enormous benefit, but with minuscule chance of success. This paper develops a new kind of knowledge-first decision theory that implies that we should no…
Group prioritarianism
If a future AI system can enjoy far more well-being than a human per resource, what would be the best way to allocate resources between these future AI and our future descendants? It is obvious that on total utilitarianism, one should give everything to the AI. However, it turns out that every Welfarist axiology on the market also gives this same recommendation, at least if we assume consequentialism. Without resorting to non-consequentialist nor…
Know Your Way Out of St. Petersburg
Prefaces, Knowledge, and Questions
The Preface Paradox is often discussed for its implications for rational belief. Much less discussed is a variant of the Preface Paradox for knowledge. In this paper, I argue that the most plausible closure-friendly resolution to the Preface Paradox for Knowledge is to say that in any given context, we do not know much. I call this view “Socraticism”. I argue that Socraticism is the most plausible view on two accounts—(1) this view is compatible …
Uttering Moorean Sentences and the pragmatics of belief reports
No prominent works on this page.
Uttering Moorean Sentences and the pragmatics of belief reports
Prefaces, Knowledge, and Questions
The Preface Paradox is often discussed for its implications for rational belief. Much less discussed is a variant of the Preface Paradox for knowledge. In this paper, I argue that the most plausible closure-friendly resolution to the Preface Paradox for Knowledge is to say that in any given context, we do not know much. I call this view “Socraticism”. I argue that Socraticism is the most plausible view on two accounts—(1) this view is compatible …
Know Your Way Out of St. Petersburg
Moral Facts Do Not Supervene on Non-moral Qualitative Facts
It is very natural to think that if two people, x and y, are qualitatively identical and have committed qualitatively identical actions, then it cannot be the case that one has committed something wrong whereas the other did not. That is to say, if x and y differ in their moral status, then it must be because x and y are qualitatively different, and not simply because x is identical to x and not identical to y. In this fictional dialogue between …
Paradoxes of infinite aggregation
There are infinitely many ways the world might be, and there may well be infinitely many people in it. These facts raise moral paradoxes. We explore a conflict between two highly attractive principles: a Pareto principle that says that what is better for everyone is better overall, and a statewise dominance principle that says that what is sure to turn out better is better on balance. We refine and generalize this paradox, showing that the proble…
Fanaticism and knowledge
It is estimated that five hundred billion dollars are spent on philanthropy every year. How should we spend those resources to do the most good? One possible answer, based on expected-value reasoning, is that we should spend those resources “fanatically” on interventions that can possibly produce enormous benefit, but with minuscule chance of success. This paper develops a new kind of knowledge-first decision theory that implies that we should no…
Group prioritarianism
If a future AI system can enjoy far more well-being than a human per resource, what would be the best way to allocate resources between these future AI and our future descendants? It is obvious that on total utilitarianism, one should give everything to the AI. However, it turns out that every Welfarist axiology on the market also gives this same recommendation, at least if we assume consequentialism. Without resorting to non-consequentialist nor…
Epistemology (7 works) · Philosophy (7 works) · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (6 works) · Computer Science (3 works) · Metaphysics (3 works) · Philosophy and Theoretical Science (3 works) · Philosophy of language (3 works) · Sociology (3 works) · Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills (2 works) · Law (2 works)