David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 176 (1):83 - 103 (2010)
Standard principles of rational decision assume that an option's utility is both comprehensive and accessible. These features constrain interpretations of an option's utility. This essay presents a way of understanding utility and laws of utility. It explains the relation between an option's utility and its outcome's utility and argues that an option's utility is relative to a specification of the option. Utility's relativity explains how a decision problem's framing affects an option's utility and its rationality even for an agent who is cognitively perfect and lacks only empirical information. The essay rewrites standard laws of utility to accommodate relativization to propositions' specifications. The new laws are generalizations of the standard laws and yield them as special cases
|Keywords||Decision frame Direct reference Expected utility Proposition Rationality Utility|
|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
Michael Bacharach (2006). Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory. Princeton University Press.
Mark Crimmins (2002). Talk About Beliefs. MIT Press.
Terry Horgan (2000). The Two-Envelope Paradox, Nonstandard Expected Utility, and the Intensionality of Probability. Noûs 34 (4):578–603.
Jennifer S. Lerner & Dacher Keltner (2000). Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-Specific Influences on Judgement and Choice. Cognition and Emotion 14 (4):473-493.
David Lewis (1979). Attitudes de Dicto and de Se. Philosophical Review 88 (4):513-543.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Marc le Menestrel & Luk van Wassenhove (2001). The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):329-349.
Per-erik Malmnäs (1994). Axiomatic Justifications of the Utility Principle: A Formal Investigation. Synthese 99 (2):233 - 249.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Marc le Menestrel (2001). A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Paul Weirich (1986). Expected Utility and Risk. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):419-442.
Barry Schwartz, Yakov Ben-Haim & Cliff Dacso (2011). What Makes a Good Decision? Robust Satisficing as a Normative Standard of Rational Decision Making. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41 (2):209-227.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Extensions of Expected Utility Theory and Some Limitations of Pairwise Comparisons.
Paul Weirich (1984). Interpersonal Utility in Principles of Social Choice. Erkenntnis 21 (3):295 - 317.
Wesley Cooper (2008). Decision-Value Utilitarianism. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
Added to index2009-03-04
Total downloads20 ( #81,851 of 1,096,840 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #164,128 of 1,096,840 )
How can I increase my downloads?