My dissertation defends an aggregative approach to public policy. It consists of five papers: one positive argument for aggregation, one negative argument against its main alternative, two applied papers using healthcare as a case study, and one extending the argument to advanced AI and digital minds.
In preparation
"The Convergence Argument for Interpersonal Aggregation"
Argues that consequentialists, contractualists, and deontologists can converge on aggregation in public policy easier than they could converge on any other approach.
In revision
"What We Owe Each Other Not to Know: Ignorance as a Moral Resource in Stage-Wise Ex Ante Contractualism"
Argues that stage-wise ex ante contractualism is the best version of contractualism, but that it has a troubling relationship to knowledge.
To be resubmitted
"In Healthcare Allocation, Everyone's Well-Being Matters"
With Aksel Sterri (50-50)
Argues that all kinds of effects should be counted and aggregated in health priority setting.
In progress
"Moral Aggregation in the Age of Advanced AI and Digital Minds"
Asks how the case for interpersonal aggregation fares once death is no longer near-certain, for beings with radically extended lives and for digital minds, and how the moral weight of a life should scale with its length. Supported by a Longview Philanthropy Digital Minds Career Development Fellowship and a BlueDot Impact Rapid Grant.
