Fairness and randomness in decision-making: the case of decision thresholds

This paper defends the role of lotteries in fair decision-making. It does so by targeting the use of decision thresholds to convert algorithmic predictions and classifications into decisions. Using an account of fairness from John Broome, the paper argues that decision thresholds are sometimes unfair, and that lotteries would be a fairer allocation method. It closes by dealing with two objections. First, it deals with the objection that lotteries should only be used to break ties in cases where individuals' claims are equally strong. Here, the paper gives a new argument for Broome's view, targeting decision criteria that are arbitrary and highly standardized. It then defends the arguments of the paper against the objection that lotteries are not morally superior to other methods of arbitrary choosing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-06-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05091-7
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Fairness and randomness in decision-making: the case of decision thresholds

Kate Vredenburgh
Synthese
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
article

Fairness and randomness in decision-making: the case of decision thresholds

Kate Vredenburgh
article en

Abstract

This paper defends the role of lotteries in fair decision-making. It does so by targeting the use of decision thresholds to convert algorithmic predictions and classifications into decisions. Using an account of fairness from John Broome, the paper argues that decision thresholds are sometimes unfair, and that lotteries would be a fairer allocation method. It closes by dealing with two objections. First, it deals with the objection that lotteries should only be used to break ties in cases where individuals' claims are equally strong. Here, the paper gives a new argument for Broome's view, targeting decision criteria that are arbitrary and highly standardized. It then defends the arguments of the paper against the objection that lotteries are not morally superior to other methods of arbitrary choosing.

SyntheseVol. 206(1)
Scientific Methods (United States) (US)
UK Research and Innovation, University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Seoul National University, Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.