David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):215-234 (2008)
In this essay I dispute the widely held view that utility theory and decision theory are formalizations of instrumental rationality. I show that the decision theoretic framework has no deep problems accommodating the ?reasonable? qua a preference to engage in fair cooperation as such. All evaluative criteria relevant to choice can be built into a von Neumann?Morgenstern utility function. I focus on the claim that, while rational choice?driven agents are caught in the Pareto?inferior outcome, reasonable agents could ?solve? the PD and cooperate. Not so, I argue. If reasonable people find themselves in PD situations they too would follow the dominant ?defect? strategy. The difference between instrumentally rational agents and those who are also reasonable is not that they would behave differently in Prisoner?s Dilemmas, but that reasonable people are more successful at avoiding the Prisoner?s Dilemma and tend to play more cooperative games
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
S. I. Benn & G. W. Mortimore (eds.) (1976). Rationality and the Social Sciences: Contributions to the Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gerald F. Gaus (2003). Once More Unto the Breach, My Dear Friends, Once More. Philosophical Studies 116 (2):159-170.
Gerald F. Gaus (2002). Principles, Goals and Symbols: Nozick on Practical Rationality. In David Schmidtz (ed.), Robert Nozick. Cambridge University Press. 105--130.
David P. Gauthier (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford University Press.
Peter J. Hammond (1988). Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 25 (1):25-78.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Alan Hájek & Michael Smithson (2012). Rationality and Indeterminate Probabilities. Synthese 187 (1):33-48.
Pradier Pierre-Charles, David Teira & Jallais Sophie (2008). Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
Huaping Wang & Xiaoming Sheng (2007). Cooperative Naturalism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (4):601 - 613.
Kenneth G. Ferguson (2007). Biological Function and Normativity. Philo 10 (1):17-26.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane (2010). Coherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty. Synthese 172 (1):157 - 176.
Garrath Williams (2012). Children as Means and Ends in Large-Scale Medical Research. Bioethics 26 (8):422-430.
Michael Byron (1998). Satisficing and Optimality. Ethics 109 (1):67-93.
Marc le Menestrel & Luk van Wassenhove (2001). The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):329-349.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #102,026 of 1,100,764 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #115,463 of 1,100,764 )
How can I increase my downloads?