Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Revisiting Risk and Rationality: a reply to Pettigrew and Briggs

  • Lara Buchak (a1)

Abstract

I have claimed that risk-weighted expected utility (REU) maximizers are rational, and that their preferences cannot be captured by expected utility (EU) theory. Richard Pettigrew and Rachael Briggs have recently challenged these claims. Both authors argue that only EU-maximizers are rational. In addition, Pettigrew argues that the preferences of REU-maximizers can indeed be captured by EU theory, and Briggs argues that REU-maximizers lose a valuable tool for simplifying their decision problems. I hold that their arguments do not succeed and that my original claims still stand. However, their arguments do highlight some costs of REU theory.

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Allais, Maurice. ([1953] 1979). “The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School.” In Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox, edited by Allais, Maurice and Hagen, Ole ( 1979), 27145. Dordrecht: Reidel. English Translation of “Fondements d’une Théorie Positive des Choix Comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de L’Ecole Americaine,”; Econometrie (1953): 257–332.
Briggs, Rachael. 2015. “Costs of Abandoning the Sure-thing Principle.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming).
Buchak, Lara. 2013. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672165.001.0001
Easwaran, Kenny, and Fitelson, Branden. 2012. “An ‘Evidentialist’ Worry About Joyce’s Argument for Probabilism.” Dialectica 66 (3): 425433. 10.1111/dltc.2012.66.issue-3
Gauthier, David. 1997. “Resolute Choice and Rational Deliberation: A Critique and a Defense.” Noûs 31 (1): 125.
Gilboa, Itzhak. 1987. “Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-additive Probabilities.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 16: 6588. 10.1016/0304-4068(87)90022-X
Hammond, Peter. 1988. “Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility.” Theory and Decision 25: 2578. 10.1007/BF00129168
Hedden, Brian. 2015. Reasons Without Persons: Rationality, Identity, and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732594.001.0001
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263291. 10.2307/1914185
McClennen, Edward F. 1990. Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511983979
McClennen, Edward F. 1997. “Pragmatic Rationality and Rules.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (3): 210258. 10.1111/papa.1997.26.issue-3
Moss, Sarah. 2015. “Credal Dilemmas.” Noûs 49 (4): 665683.
Pettigrew, Richard. 2013. “Accuracy and Evidence.” Dialectica 67 (4): 579596. 10.1111/1746-8361.12043
Pettigrew, Richard. 2015. “Risk, Rationality, and Expected Utility Theory.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming).
Quiggin, John. 1982. “A theory of anticipated utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3: 323343. 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7
Schmeidler, David. 1989. “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility Without Additivity.” Econometrica 57 (3): 571587. 10.2307/1911053
Strotz, R. H. 1955. “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization.” The Review of Economic Studies 23 (3): 165180. 10.2307/2295722
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297323. 10.1007/BF00122574

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Revisiting Risk and Rationality: a reply to Pettigrew and Briggs

  • Lara Buchak (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.