What are the minimal requirements of rational choice? Arguments from the sequential-decision setting |
| |
Authors: | Katie Siobhan Steele |
| |
Institution: | 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method,London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE),London,UK |
| |
Abstract: | There are at least two plausible generalisations of subjective expected utility (SEU) theory: cumulative prospect theory (which
relaxes the independence axiom) and Levi’s decision theory (which relaxes at least ordering). These theories call for a re-assessment
of the minimal requirements of rational choice. Here, I consider how an analysis of sequential decision making contributes
to this assessment. I criticise Hammond’s (Economica 44(176):337–350, 1977; Econ Philos 4:292–297, 1988a; Risk, decision and
rationality, 1988b; Theory Decis 25:25–78, 1988c) ‘consequentialist’ argument for the SEU preference axioms, but go on to
formulate a related diachronic-Dutch-book-style’ argument that better achieves Hammond’s aims. Some deny the importance of
Dutch-book sure losses, however, in which case, Seidenfeld’s (Econ Philos 4:267–290, 1988a) argument that distinguishes between
theories that relax independence and those that relax ordering is relevant. I unravel Seidenfeld’s argument in light of the
various criticisms of it and show that the crux of the argument is somewhat different and much more persuasive than what others
have taken it to be; the critical issue is the modelling of future choices between ‘indifferent’ decision-tree branches in
the sequential setting. Finally, I consider how Seidenfeld’s conclusions might nonetheless be resisted. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|