David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 9 (03):329- (1997)
Moral theorists and game theorists are both interested in situations where rational agents are to constrain their future actions and co-operate with others instead of being free riders. These theorists have constructed a variety of hypothetical games which illuminate this problem of constraint. In this paper, I draw a distinction between like the Newcomb paradox and like Kavka's toxin puzzle, a prisoner's dilemma and Parfit's hitchhiker example. I then employ this distinction to argue that agents who subscribe to the orthodox theory of rationality do significantly better in disposition games than those who subscribe to revisionist theories like David Gauthier's, while revisionist agents do marginally better in behaviour games. I argue that because of agents' ability to manipulate their own weakness of will, orthodox agents do better at all of these games than has previously been thought. And, by elucidating the distinction between behaviour games and disposition games, I uncover the virtues that underlie the success of each theory of rationality
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Martin Bunzl (2002). Evolutionary Games Without Rationality? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (3):365-378.
Lisa Bortolotti (2003). Inconsistency and Interpretation. Philosophical Explorations 6 (2):109-123.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2008). Common Knowledge of Rationality in Extensive Games. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 49 (3):261-280.
Paul Weirich (2003). From Rationality to Coordination. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):179-180.
Maarten C. W. Janssen (2001). Rationalizing Focal Points. Theory and Decision 50 (2):119-148.
David Wallace (2010). Diachronic Rationality and Prediction-Based Games. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (3pt3):243-266.
Andrew M. Colman (2003). Cooperation, Psychological Game Theory, and Limitations of Rationality in Social Interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):139-153.
Mohan P. Matthen (2002). Human Rationality and the Unique Origin Constraint. In André Ariew (ed.), Functions. Oxford University Press. 341.
Robert Stalnaker (1999). Extensive and Strategic Forms: Games and Models for Games. Research in Economics 53 (3):293 - 319.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (1998). Grappling With the Centipede: Defence of Backward Induction for BI-Terminating Games. Economics and Philosophy 14 (01):95-.
Karl Sigmund (2003). “Was You Ever Bit by a Dead Bee?” – Evolutionary Games and Dominated Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):175-176.
David J. Butler (2003). Evolution, the Emotions, and Rationality in Social Interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):156-157.
Edward McClennen (1992). The Theory of Rationality for Ideal Games. Philosophical Studies 65 (1-2):193 - 215.
Leigh Tesfatsion (1984). Games, Goals, and Bounded Rationality. Theory and Decision 17 (2):149-175.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads5 ( #230,913 of 1,102,503 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #121,593 of 1,102,503 )
How can I increase my downloads?