I am not familiar with the moral uncertainty literature, but in my mind it would make sense to define the utility scale of each welfare theory such that the difference in utility between the best and worst possible state is always the same. For example, always assigning 1 to the best possible state, and −1 to the worst possible state. In this case, the weights of each welfare theory would represent their respective strength/​plausibility, and therefore not be arbitrary?
Hi Carl,
I am not familiar with the moral uncertainty literature, but in my mind it would make sense to define the utility scale of each welfare theory such that the difference in utility between the best and worst possible state is always the same. For example, always assigning 1 to the best possible state, and −1 to the worst possible state. In this case, the weights of each welfare theory would represent their respective strength/​plausibility, and therefore not be arbitrary?