David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262 (2001)
This paper argues that any specific utility or disutility for gambling must be excluded from expected utility because such a theory is consequential while a pleasure or displeasure for gambling is a matter of process, not of consequences. A (dis)utility for gambling is modeled as a process utility which monotonically combines with expected utility restricted to consequences. This allows for a process (dis)utility for gambling to be revealed. As an illustration, the model shows how empirical observations in the Allais paradox can reveal a process disutility of gambling. A more general model of rational behavior combining processes and consequences is then proposed and discussed
|Keywords||Gambling Expected utility Process utility Rationality Consequentialism|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Don Ross (2010). Economic Models of Pathological Gambling. In D. Ross, D. Kincaid, D. Spurrett & P. Collins (eds.), What is Addiction? MIT Press 131--158.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Wesley Cooper (2008). Decision-Value Utilitarianism. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
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.
Lisa Newton (1993). Gambling. Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (4):405-418.
Lisa H. Newton (2003). Gambling. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):405-418.
Paul Weirich (2010). Utility and Framing. Synthese 176 (1):83 - 103.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
R. Duncan Luce & A. A. J. Marley (2000). On Elements of Chance. Theory and Decision 49 (2):97-126.
Hans Lottenbach (1994). Expected Utility and Constrained Maximization: Problems of Compatibility. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 41 (1):37 - 48.
David B. Fletcher (2003). Gambling and Character. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):1-15.
Nils-Eric Sahlin, Annika Wallin & Johannes Persson (2010). Decision Science: From Ramsey to Dual Process Theories. Synthese 172 (1):129 - 143.
Pradier Pierre-Charles, David Teira & Jallais Sophie (2008). Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
Marc le Menestrel & Luk van Wassenhove (2001). The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):329-349.
Patrick Suppes (1981). The Limits of Rationality. Grazer Philosophische Studien 12:85-101.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads20 ( #158,709 of 1,777,882 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #143,201 of 1,777,882 )
How can I increase my downloads?