Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T03:26:12.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maximization, Stability of Decision, and Actions in Accordance with Reason

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Jordan Howard Sobel
Jordan Howard Sobel*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rational actions reflect beliefs and preferences in certain orderly ways. The problem of theory is to explain which beliefs and preferences are relevant to the rationality of particular actions, and exactly how they are relevant. One distinction of interest here is between an agent's beliefs and preferences just before an action's time, and his beliefs and preferences at its time. Theorists do not agree about the times of beliefs and desires that are relevant to the rationality of action. Another distinction is between actions that would, in one sense or another, maximize expected utilities given relevant beliefs and desires, and actions, decisions for which would, in one sense or another, be stable. There is disagreement about the relevance of these things to the rationality of actions. Here, in the first part below, several possible positions on these issues are explained and compared. In the second part, I contrast perspectives on these issues, and comment on arguments that might be brought against the position I favor. In the third part, I restate and elaborate on this position.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 60 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Eells, E. (1984), “Metatickles and the Dynamics of Deliberation”, Theory and Decision 17: 71–95.10.1007/BF00140057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1985), “Causal Decision Theory”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, v. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 177–200.Google Scholar
Eells, E. (1985), “Weirich on Decision Instability”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 473–478.10.1080/00048408512342071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. (1985), “Ratifiability and Causal Decision Theory: Comments on Eells and Seidenfeld”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, v. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 213–228.Google Scholar
Harper, W. (1986), “Mixed Strategies and Ratifiability in Causal Decision Theory”, Erkenntnis 24: 26–36.10.1007/BF00183199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1983), The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1976), “Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities”, The Philosophical Review 85: 297–315.10.2307/2184045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. (1985), “Ratificationism without Ratification: Jeffrey meets Savage”, Theory and Decision 19: 171–200.10.1007/BF00132442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1986), “Deliberational Equilibria”, Topoi 5: 59–67.10.1007/BF00137830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (forthcoming), “The Value of Knowledge”, in C. W. Savage (ed.), Justification, Discovery and the Evaluation of Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1982), “Utilitarian Principles for Imperfect Agents”, Theoria 48: 113–126.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1982.tb00486.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1983), “Expected Utilities and Rational Actions and Choices”, Theoria 49: 159–183.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1983.tb00212.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1985), “Circumstances and Dominance in a Causal Decision Theory”, Synthese 63: 167–202.10.1007/BF00485366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1986), “Metatickles and Ratificationism”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds.), PSA 1986, v. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 342–351.Google Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1986), “Notes on Decision Theory: Old Wine in New Bottles”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64: 407–437.10.1080/00048408612342621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1987), “Self-doubts and Dutch Strategies”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65: 56–81.10.1080/00048408712342771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1988), “Defenses and Conservative Revisions of Evidential Decision Theories: Metatickles and Ratificationism”, Synthese 75: 107–131. (A revised and substantially expanded version of “Metatickles and Ratificationism”.)10.1007/BF00873276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1989), “Partition-Theorems for Causal Decision Theories”, Philosophy of Science 56: 70–94.10.1086/289473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (forthcoming), “World Bayesianism: Comments on the Hammond/McClennen Debate”, in Proceedings of FUR-III: Risk, Decision and Rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 537–542.Google Scholar
Weirich, P. (1985), “Decision Instability”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 465–472.10.1080/00048408512342061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weirich, P. (1986), “Decisions in Dynamic Settings”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds.), PSA 1986, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 438–449.Google Scholar
Weirich, P. “Hierarchical, Maximization of Two Kinds of Expected Utility”, Unpublished manuscript. (A revised and expanded descendant of “Decisions in Dynamic Settings”.)Google Scholar