Binding and its consequences
Philosophical Studies 149 (1):49-71 (2010)
| Abstract | In “Bayesianism, Infinite Decisions, and Binding”, Arntzenius et al. (Mind 113:251–283, 2004 ) present cases in which agents who cannot bind themselves are driven by standard decision theory to choose sequences of actions with disastrous consequences. They defend standard decision theory by arguing that if a decision rule leads agents to disaster only when they cannot bind themselves, this should not be taken to be a mark against the decision rule. I show that this claim has surprising implications for a number of other debates in decision theory. I then assess the plausibility of this claim, and suggest that it should be rejected. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
  |
| External links |
 Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPaul Weirich (2004). Realistic Decision Theory: Rules for Nonideal Agents in Nonideal Circumstances. OUP USA.
John R. Welch (2012). Real-Life Decisions and Decision Theory. In Sabine Roeser, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Per Sandin & Martin Peterson (eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer.
Paul Weirich (1986). Expected Utility and Risk. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):419-442.
Jeffrey A. Barrett & Frank Arntzenius (2002). Why the Infinite Decision Puzzle is Puzzling. Theory and Decision 52 (2):139-147.
Frank Arntzenius, Adam Elga & and John Hawthorne (2004). Bayesianism, Infinite Decisions, and Binding. Mind 113 (450):251-283.
Frank Arntzenius (2008). No Regrets, Or: Edith Piaf Revamps Decision Theory. Erkenntnis 68 (2):277-297.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-03-22Total downloads57 ( #17,372 of 551,007 )Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #3,956 of 551,007 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
