Real-Life Decisions and Decision Theory
In Sabine Roeser, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Per Sandin & Martin Peterson (eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer (2012)
| Abstract | Some decisions result in cognitive consequences such as information gained and information lost. The focus of this study, however, is decisions with consequences that are partly or completely noncognitive. These decisions are typically referred to as ‘real-life decisions’. According to a common complaint, the challenges of real-life decision making cannot be met by decision theory. This complaint has at least two principal motives. One is the maximizing objection that to require agents to determine the optimal act under real-world constraints is unrealistic. The other is the precision objection that the numeric requirements for applying decision theory are overly demanding for real-life decisions. Responses to both objections are aired in the History section of this chapter. The maximizing objection is addressed with reference to work by Weirich and Pollock, while the precision objection is countered via a proposal by Kyburg and another by Gärdenfors and Sahlin. However, the Current Research section urges a different response to the precision objection by introducing a comparative version of decision theory. Drawing on Chu and Halpern’s notion of generalized expected utility, this version of decision theory permits many choices to be based on merely comparative plausibilities and utilities. Finally, the Further Research section undertakes an open-ended exploration of three of the assumptions upon which this form of decision theory (and many others) is based: transitivity, independence, and plausibilistic decision rules. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn R. Welch (2011). Decision Theory and Cognitive Choice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (2):147-172.
Paul Weirich (2004). Realistic Decision Theory: Rules for Nonideal Agents in Nonideal Circumstances. OUP USA.
Berit Brogaard (1999). A Peircean Theory of Decision. Synthese 118 (3):383-401.
Dennis L. Krebs, Kathy Denton & Gillian Wark (1997). The Forms and Functions of Real‐Life Moral Decision‐Making. Journal of Moral Education 26 (2):131-145.
Noël Pauwels, Bartel van De Walle, Frank Hardeman & Karel Soudan (2000). The Implications of Irreversibility in Emergency Response Decisions. Theory and Decision 49 (1):25-51.
Nils O. Larsson (2000). Decision Settings Analysis  a Tool for Analysis and Design of Human Activity Systems. Theory and Decision 49 (4):339-360.
Joe Mintoff (1999). Are Decisions Motive-Perpetuating? Analysis 59 (4):266–275.
Miquel Bastons (2008). The Role of Virtues in the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 78 (3):389 - 400.
Christopher J. G. Meacham (2010). Binding and its Consequences. Philosophical Studies 149 (1):49-71.
Shira Haviv & Patrick J. Leman (2002). Moral Decision-Making in Real Life: Factors Affecting Moral Orientation and Behaviour Justification. Journal of Moral Education 31 (2):121-140.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-04-26Total downloads38 ( #30,920 of 549,128 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,128 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
