Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-7bjf6 Total loading time: 0.378 Render date: 2021-07-30T02:21:29.967Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON RATIONAL CHOICE AND PHILOSOPHY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2016

Samir Okasha
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, 9 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TB, UK. Email: samir.okasha@bristol.ac.uk. URL: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/school-of-arts/people/samir-okasha/
John A. Weymark
Affiliation:
Departments of Economics and Philosophy, Vanderbilt University, VU Station B #351819, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235-1819, USA. Email: john.weymark@vanderbilt.edu. URL: http://as.vanderbilt.edu/econ/bio/john-weymark.
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

This symposium contains a selection of the papers that were presented at a conference we organized on Rational Choice and Philosophy that was held at Vanderbilt University on 16 and 17 May 2014. The aim of the conference was to provide an inter-disciplinary forum for philosophical work that uses ideas and tools from rational choice theory, understood broadly to include decision theory, game theory and social choice theory.

Type
Symposium on Rational Choice and Philosophy
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

This symposium contains a selection of the papers that were presented at a conference we organized on Rational Choice and Philosophy that was held at Vanderbilt University on 16 and 17 May 2014. The aim of the conference was to provide an inter-disciplinary forum for philosophical work that uses ideas and tools from rational choice theory, understood broadly to include decision theory, game theory and social choice theory.

In the first of their two papers, Franz Dietrich and Christian List present a novel theory of individual choice designed to overcome what they regard as an important limitation of classical choice theory. Classical theory says nothing about how an agent perceives the options in the choice set, and so cannot capture the intuitive idea that an agent chooses an object because the object possesses certain properties. Dietrich and List introduce the idea that objects have ‘motivationally salient properties’ for agents, which can depend on the context; this allows them to inject an element of psychological realism into classical choice theory. They show how the idea of ‘reason-based choice’ can be elaborated formally and used to solve a number of problems that plague the classical theory.

Richard Bradley’s paper addresses a famous problem in the theory of individual choice under uncertainty, namely how to make sense of agents with ‘Ellsberg preferences’, that is, who are averse to uncertainty about the chances of some good. Ellsberg himself argued that such preferences are incompatible with Bayesian decision theory à la Savage, an argument that many have accepted. Bradley argues, by contrast, that the Ellsberg preferences arise because we value chances non-linearly and, hence, not in accordance with von Neumann–Morgenstern (vNM) utility theory. He concludes that it is possible to reconcile Ellsberg preferences with Savage’s theory so long as we abandon the assumption that the valuation of chances proceeds in accordance with vNM utility theory.

Dietrich and List’s second paper addresses a key foundational issue in decision theory and microeconomics more generally, namely whether we should endorse the behaviourist view that all apparent reference to mental states (e.g. preference or utility) should be understood in a strictly ‘as if’ fashion. This old debate has recently been re-invigorated by Gul and Pesendorfer’s (Reference Gul, Pesendorfer, Caplin and Schotter2008) defence of ‘mindless economics’. Dietrich and List develop a persuasive case against behaviourism by drawing on ideas about explanation, realism, and representation from the general philosophy of science. They also reject the radical neuroeconomic view that seeks to explain economic behaviour directly in terms of brain states.

Matthew Adler’s paper discusses what he calls ‘meta-ethical aggregation’, which is a problem that arises for many ‘ideal advisor’ theories of ethics. On such theories, moral facts are facts about the idealized preferences of a community of advisors. Adler notes an obvious problem for such theories: the advisors may not all share the same preferences. This raises the issue of how to aggregate their preferences into a single community preference. Adler tackles this issue using Arrovian social choice theory, paying particular attention to the question of what the appropriate domain assumption is in meta-ethical aggregation. Adler’s approach nicely illustrates how the formal machinery of social choice theory can be utilized to clarify a traditional philosophical question.

Michael Morreau’s paper is also a novel application of social choice theory, in this case to the problem of ‘collective grading’. This problem arises when a number of evaluators each grade a set of items (e.g. exam scripts, grant proposals or restaurants), and the individual grades are aggregated into a collective grade. Morreau emphasizes that the boundaries (‘thresholds’) between grades are subject to uncertainty because different evaluators may not agree on the exact meaning of the grades. His paper investigates the impact of this uncertainty on the aggregation problem. Using a modification of the Arrow–Sen framework for social choice, Morreau identifies a condition that collective grading should ideally satisfy called ‘soundness’ and shows that whether it can be achieved depends on whether the different evaluators have the same grading thresholds or not.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the Berry Fund, the College of Arts and Science, the Department of Economics, the Department of Philosophy, and the Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Chair in Economics, all at Vanderbilt University, for their financial support for the conference on which this symposium is based. Samir Okasha was supported by the European Research Council Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013), ERC Grant agreement no. 295449.

References

Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: A Handbook, eds. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., 339. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON RATIONAL CHOICE AND PHILOSOPHY
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON RATIONAL CHOICE AND PHILOSOPHY
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON RATIONAL CHOICE AND PHILOSOPHY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *