Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:57:44.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting Risk and Rationality: a reply to Pettigrew and Briggs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Lara Buchak
Lara Buchak*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I have claimed that risk-weighted expected utility (REU) maximizers are rational, and that their preferences cannot be captured by expected utility (EU) theory. Richard Pettigrew and Rachael Briggs have recently challenged these claims. Both authors argue that only EU-maximizers are rational. In addition, Pettigrew argues that the preferences of REU-maximizers can indeed be captured by EU theory, and Briggs argues that REU-maximizers lose a valuable tool for simplifying their decision problems. I hold that their arguments do not succeed and that my original claims still stand. However, their arguments do highlight some costs of REU theory.

Keywords

Risk-weighted expected utilityexpected utilitydecision theorysure-thing principleriskaccuracyAllais paradox
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 5-6: Special Issue: Belief, Action, and Rationality over Time , December 2015 , pp. 841 - 862
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allais, Maurice. ([1953] 1979). “The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School.” In Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox, edited by Allais, Maurice and Hagen, Ole ( 1979), 27–145. Dordrecht: Reidel. English Translation of “Fondements d’une Théorie Positive des Choix Comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de L’Ecole Americaine,”; Econometrie (1953): 257–332.Google Scholar
Briggs, Rachael. 2015. “Costs of Abandoning the Sure-thing Principle.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming).10.1080/00455091.2015.1122387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchak, Lara. 2013. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672165.001.000110.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672165.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easwaran, Kenny, and Fitelson, Branden. 2012. “An ‘Evidentialist’ Worry About Joyce’s Argument for Probabilism.” Dialectica 66 (3): 425–433. 10.1111/dltc.2012.66.issue-310.1111/j.1746-8361.2012.01311.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1997. “Resolute Choice and Rational Deliberation: A Critique and a Defense.” Noûs 31 (1): 1–25.10.1111/0029-4624.00033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, Itzhak. 1987. “Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-additive Probabilities.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 16: 65–88. 10.1016/0304-4068(87)90022-X10.1016/0304-4068(87)90022-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Peter. 1988. “Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility.” Theory and Decision 25: 25–78. 10.1007/BF0012916810.1007/BF00129168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedden, Brian. 2015. Reasons Without Persons: Rationality, Identity, and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732594.001.000110.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732594.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263–291. 10.2307/191418510.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClennen, Edward F. 1990. Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO978051198397910.1017/CBO9780511983979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClennen, Edward F. 1997. “Pragmatic Rationality and Rules.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (3): 210–258. 10.1111/papa.1997.26.issue-310.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00054.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, Sarah. 2015. “Credal Dilemmas.” Noûs 49 (4): 665–683.10.1111/nous.12073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard. 2013. “Accuracy and Evidence.” Dialectica 67 (4): 579–596. 10.1111/1746-8361.1204310.1111/1746-8361.12043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard. 2015. “Risk, Rationality, and Expected Utility Theory.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming).10.1080/00455091.2015.1119610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, John. 1982. “A theory of anticipated utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3: 323–343. 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-710.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmeidler, David. 1989. “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility Without Additivity.” Econometrica 57 (3): 571–587. 10.2307/191105310.2307/1911053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strotz, R. H. 1955. “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization.” The Review of Economic Studies 23 (3): 165–180. 10.2307/229572210.2307/2295722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323. 10.1007/BF0012257410.1007/BF00122574CrossRefGoogle Scholar