In Living with Uncertainty Michael Zimmerman argues against the Objective view and for the Prospective view of morality. He claims that the conscientious agent would always choose the act that maximizes projected value, and that this is incompatible with Objectivism. Peter Graham defends Objectivism against Zimmerman’s attack. He argues that a conscientious agent must balance fulfilling obligations against avoiding the worst wrong-doings, and that this stance is consistent with Objectivism and with the agent’s choosing an act she believes to be Objectively wrong. In Ignorance and Moral Obligation Zimmerman argues that Graham’s “Objectivism” is only terminologically distinct from his Prospectivism. I argue that Graham faces a dilemma: if his theory delivers different prescriptions from Zimmerman’s, those prescriptions are implausible. On the other hand, if his theory avoids such implausible recommendations, it now generates exactly the same recommendations as Zimmerman’s theory, and so does not constitute a serious challenge to it.

中文翻译：

---

Zimmerman-Graham 关于客观主义与前瞻性主义的辩论

在与不确定性共处中，迈克尔·齐默尔曼 (Michael Zimmerman) 反对客观观和前瞻性道德观。他声称尽责的代理人总是会选择最大化预期价值的行为，这与客观主义不相容。彼得格雷厄姆捍卫客观主义反对齐默尔曼的攻击。他认为，一个有良心的代理人必须在履行义务和避免最坏的错误行为之间取得平衡，并且这种立场与客观主义以及代理人选择她认为是客观错误的行为是一致的。在无知和道德义务中，齐默尔曼认为格雷厄姆的“客观主义”只是在术语上与他的前景主义不同。我认为格雷厄姆面临一个两难境地：如果他的理论提供了与齐默尔曼不同的处方，那么这些处方就是难以置信的。