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 problem is faced by many theories of interpersonal aggregation besides utilitarianism, and by many decision theories besides expected value theory. Considering the range of consistent responses, we find all of them to be quite radical.

中文翻译：

---

无限聚合的悖论


世界可能有无数种方式，其中很可能有无数人。这些事实引发了道德悖论。我们探讨了两个极具吸引力的原则之间的冲突：帕累托原则说对每个人都更好的东西总体上更好，而州级支配原则说肯定会变得更好，总的来说会更好。我们提炼和概括了这个悖论，表明除了功利主义之外，许多人际聚合理论都面临着这个问题，除了期望价值理论之外，许多决策理论都面临着这个问题。考虑到一致的反应范围，我们发现它们都是相当激进的。