David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 25 (1):25-78 (1988)
Behaviour norms are considered for decision trees which allow both objective probabilities and uncertain states of the world with unknown probabilities. Terminal nodes have consequences in a given domain. Behaviour is required to be consistent in subtrees. Consequentialist behaviour, by definition, reveals a consequence choice function independent of the structure of the decision tree. It implies that behaviour reveals a revealed preference ordering satisfying both the independence axiom and a novel form of sure-thing principle. Continuous consequentialist behaviour must be expected utility maximizing. Other plausible assumptions then imply additive utilities, subjective probabilities, and Bayes' rule
|Keywords||Expected utility subjective probability decision trees Bayes' rule consequentialist behaviour|
|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
Maurice Allais & Ole Hagen (eds.) (1979). Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. D. Reidel.
G. E. M. Anscombe (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33 (124):1 - 19.
Peter M. Brown (1976). Conditionalization and Expected Utility. Philosophy of Science 43 (3):415-419.
Peter Gärdenfors & Nils-Eric Sahlin (1982). Unreliable Probabilities, Risk Taking, and Decision Making. Synthese 53 (3):361-386.
Ian Hacking (1967). Slightly More Realistic Personal Probability. Philosophy of Science 34 (4):311-325.
Citations of this work BETA
Rob van Someren Greve (2013). Objective Consequentialism and Avoidable Imperfections. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (3):481-492.
Wolfgang Spohn (2012). Reversing 30 Years of Discussion: Why Causal Decision Theorists Should One-Box. Synthese 187 (1):95-122.
Allan Gibbard (2006). Reply to Critics. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (3):729 - 744.
Jean Hampton (1994). The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason. Economics and Philosophy 10 (02):195-.
Gerald Gaus (2008). Reasonable Utility Functions and Playing the Cooperative Way. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):215-234.
Similar books and articles
Wesley Cooper (2008). Decision-Value Utilitarianism. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Hans Lottenbach (1994). Expected Utility and Constrained Maximization: Problems of Compatibility. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 41 (1):37 - 48.
John Quiggin (2001). Production Under Uncertainty and Choice Under Uncertainty in the Emergence of Generalized Expected Utility Theory. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):125-144.
Pradier Pierre-Charles, David Teira & Jallais Sophie (2008). Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
Fred Feldman (2006). Actual Utility, the Objection From Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):49 - 79.
Marc le Menestrel (2001). A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Olav Gjelsvik (2002). Paradox Lost, but in Which Envelope? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):353-362.
Jack Vromen (2010). On the Surprising Finding That Expected Utility is Literally Computed in the Brain. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (1):17-36.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Extensions of Expected Utility Theory and Some Limitations of Pairwise Comparisons.
Reed Richter (1985). Rationality, Group Choice and Expected Utility. Synthese 63 (2):203 - 232.
Patrick Suppes (forthcoming). The Limits of Rationality. Grazer Philosophische Studien 12:85-101.
Robin Pope (2000). Reconciliation with the Utility of Chance by Elaborated Outcomes Destroys the Axiomatic Basis of Expected Utility Theory. Theory and Decision 49 (3):223-234.
Peter Wakker (1990). Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility Are Identical. Theory and Decision 29 (2):119-132.
Allan Gibbard & William Harper (1978). Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility. In A. Hooker, J. J. Leach & E. F. McClennen (eds.), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory. D. Reidel. 125-162.
Added to index2011-03-20
Total downloads22 ( #75,269 of 1,096,842 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #73,973 of 1,096,842 )
How can I increase my downloads?