Skip to main content
Log in

Reflections on deliberative coherence

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper treats two problem cases in decision theory, the Newcomb problem and Reed Richter's Button III. Although I argue that, contrary to Richter, the latter case does not constitute a genuine counterexample to a standard general proposition of (causal) decision theory, I agree with and undertake to amplify his solution to the decision problem in Button III. I then apply the conclusions and distinctions in the foregoing treatment of Button III to the Newcomb problem and argue that a familiar version of the dominance argument for taking both boxes runs afoul of plausible general constraints on rational agency. The underlying theme of the paper is that basic considerations of epistemic coherence play an important role in dealing with problem cases in decision theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brams, S. J.: 1983,Superior Beings, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, Stephen L.: 1983,Impartial Reason, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, Allan and William L. Harper: 1978, ‘Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility’, in C. A. Hooker, J. Leach and E. F. McClennen, (eds.),Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, Gilbert: 1973,Thought, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Daniel and Reed Richter: 1978, ‘Counterfactuals and Newcomb's Paradox’,Synthese 39, 249–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, Richard C.: 1983,The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed., Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, Leigh B.: 1987, ‘Impartiality and Practical Reason’,Philosophy Research Archives XII, 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, Isaac: 1977, ‘Subjunctives, Dispositions and Chances’,Synthese 34, 423–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, Isaac: 1982, ‘A Note On Newcombmania’,Journal of Philosophy 79, 337–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, Robert: 1969, ‘Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice’, in Nicholas Rescher (ed.),Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, D. Reidel, Boston. pp. 114–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, Reed: 1984, ‘Rationality Revisited’,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62, 392–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, Reed: 1985, ‘Rationality, Group Choice and Expected Utility’,Synthese 63, 203–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, Reed: 1986, ‘Further Comments on Decision Instability’,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64, 345–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Jay F.: 1974,Linguistic Representation, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, George: 1977,Religion And Scientific Method, D. Reidel, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, Brian: 1982, ‘Causal Decision Theory’,Journal of Philosophy 69, 695–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziff, Paul: 1984,Epistemic Analysis, D. Reidel, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelley, L.B. Reflections on deliberative coherence. Synthese 76, 83–121 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869642

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869642

Keywords

Navigation