Graduate studies at Western
Synthese 99 (2):233 - 249 (1994)
|Abstract||It is argued that existing axiomatic theories of utility do not provide the utility principle or the principle of maximising expected utility with a formal justification. It is also argued that these theories only put mild constraints on a decision-maker in a decision-context. Finally, it is argued that the prospects are not particularly bright for finding formal non-circular arguments for the utility principle that do not rely on the law of large numbers.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
C. L. Sheng (1986). On the Flexible Nature of Morality. Philosophy Research Archives 12:125-142.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Douglas G. Long (1990). 'Utility' and the 'Utility Principle': Hume, Smith, Bentham, Mill. Utilitas 2 (01):12-.
Paul Weirich (2010). Utility and Framing. Synthese 176 (1):83 - 103.
D. Schoch (1994). An Axiomatic Basis for Distributional Equality in Utilitarianism. Erkenntnis 40 (1):121 - 132.
Fred Feldman (2006). Actual Utility, the Objection From Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):49 - 79.
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.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Martin Peterson (2004). From Outcomes to Acts: A Non-Standard Axiomatization of the Expected Utility Principle. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33 (4):361-378.
Martin Peterson (2011). A New Twist to the St. Petersburg Paradox. Journal of Philosophy 108 (12):697-699.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,291 of 740,025 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?