Decision under normative uncertainty

被引:6
作者
Dietrich, Franz [1 ,2 ]
Jabarian, Brian [3 ]
机构
[1] Paris Sch Econ, 106-112 Blvd Hop, F-75013 Paris, France
[2] CNRS, 106-112 Blvd Hop, F-75013 Paris, France
[3] Univ Paris, Dept Philosophy, 1 Pantheon Sorbonne,17 Rue Sorbonne, F-75005 Paris, France
关键词
normative and empirical uncertainty; general framework; normative uncertainty versus identity uncertainty in Harsanyi and Rawls; maximizing expected value; ex ante versus ex post perspective; INDIVIDUALISTIC ETHICS; MORAL UNCERTAINTY; CARDINAL WELFARE; UTILITARIANISM; UTILITY; PRIORITARIANISM; EGALITARIANISM; CHOICE; RISK;
D O I
10.1017/S0266267121000201
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
While ordinary decision theory focuses on empirical uncertainty, real decision-makers also face normative uncertainty: uncertainty about value itself. From a purely formal perspective, normative uncertainty is comparable to (Harsanyian or Rawlsian) identity uncertainty in the 'original position', where one's future values are unknown. A comprehensive decision theory must address twofold uncertainty - normative and empirical. We present a simple model of twofold uncertainty, and show that the most popular decision principle - maximizing expected value ('Expectationalism') - has different formulations, namely Ex-Ante Expectationalism, Ex-Post Expectationalism, and hybrid theories. These alternative theories recommend different decisions, reasoning modes, and attitudes to risk. But they converge under an interesting (necessary and sufficient) condition.
引用
收藏
页码:372 / 394
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]   Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective [J].
Baccelli, Jean .
THEORY AND DECISION, 2018, 84 (01) :61-82
[2]   Moral uncertainty and permissibility: Evaluating Option Sets [J].
Barry, Christian ;
Tomlin, Patrick .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2016, 46 (06) :898-923
[3]  
Bossert W., 2004, Handbook of Utility Theory: Extensions, V2, P1099
[4]   Types of Uncertainty [J].
Bradley, Richard ;
Drechsler, Mareile .
ERKENNTNIS, 2014, 79 (06) :1225-1248
[5]  
Broome John., 1991, Weighing Goods
[6]  
Buchak L, 2013, RISK AVERSION RATION
[7]   CARDINAL WELFARE, INDIVIDUALISTIC ETHICS, AND INTERPERSONAL COMPARISON OF UTILITY - COMMENT [J].
DIAMOND, PA .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1967, 75 (05) :765-766
[8]  
Dietrich F., 2021, AXIOMATIC FDN NORMAT
[9]   What Matters and How It Matters: A Choice-Theoretic Representation of Moral Theories [J].
Dietrich, Franz ;
List, Christian .
PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW, 2017, 126 (04) :421-479
[10]   A Reason-Based Theory of Rational Choice [J].
Dietrich, Franz ;
List, Christian .
NOUS, 2013, 47 (01) :104-134