Decision-theoretic paradoxes as voting paradoxes

Philosophical Review 119 (1):1-30 (2010)
Authors
Rachael Briggs
Australian National University
Abstract
It is a platitude among decision theorists that agents should choose their actions so as to maximize expected value. But exactly how to define expected value is contentious. Evidential decision theory (henceforth EDT), causal decision theory (henceforth CDT), and a theory proposed by Ralph Wedgwood that this essay will call benchmark theory (BT) all advise agents to maximize different types of expected value. Consequently, their verdicts sometimes conflict. In certain famous cases of conflict—medical Newcomb problems—CDT and BT seem to get things right, while EDT seems to get things wrong. In other cases of conflict, including some recent examples suggested by Andy Egan, EDT and BT seem to get things right, while CDT seems to get things wrong. In still other cases, EDT and CDT seems to get things right, while BT gets things wrong. It's no accident, this essay claims, that all three decision theories are subject to counterexamples. Decision rules can be reinterpreted as voting rules, where the voters are the agent's possible future selves. The problematic examples have the structure of voting paradoxes. Just as voting paradoxes show that no voting rule can do everything we want, decision-theoretic paradoxes show that no decision rule can do everything we want. Luckily, the so-called “tickle defense” establishes that EDT, CDT, and BT will do everything we want in a wide range of situations. Most decision situations, this essay argues, are analogues of voting situations in which the voters unanimously adopt the same set of preferences. In such situations, all plausible voting rules and all plausible decision rules agree
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1215/00318108-2009-024
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 33,657
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Meta-Newcomb Problem.Nick Bostrom - 2001 - Analysis 61 (4):309–310.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Expecting the Unexpected.Tom Dougherty, Sophie Horowitz & Paulina Sliwa - 2015 - Res Philosophica 92 (2):301-321.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-12-08

Total downloads
377 ( #9,381 of 2,261,201 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #18,517 of 2,261,201 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature