Abstract Leora Sung argues that the phenomenon of near-future bias strengthens our duties of charitable giving and puts moral pressure on our decisions regarding savings and investment. I raise two objections to Sung’s argument. First, Sung’s argument relies on a crucial rational-choice-theoretic result which she erroneously claims is derivable from very thin facts about near-future bias, but which in fact holds only under atypical circumstances. Second, I argue that Sung’s account assigns an implausible morally determinative role to subjective preferences. I conclude by noting that the most natural responses to my two objections push in inconsistent directions, making the two objections collectively decisive against Sung’s argument.
Nathan Elvidge (Sat,) studied this question.