NEOPHOBIA

被引:10
作者
Collins, John
机构
关键词
D O I
10.11612/resphil.2015.92.2.6
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
L.A. Paul argues that epistemically transformative choice poses a special problem for standard theories of decision: when values of outcomes cannot be known in advance, deliberation cannot even get started. A standard response to this is to represent ignorance of the nature of an experience as uncertainty about its utility. Assign subjective probabilities over the range of possible utilities it may have, and an expected utility for the outcome can be figured despite the agent's ignorance of its nature. But this response to Paul's challenge seems inadequate. Decision theory should leave conceptual room for rational neophobia. A decision theory like Isaac Levi's, which allows for indeterminacy in utility, might accomodate the phenomenon. Levi's discussion of indeterminate utility has focused on examples of risk aversion like the Allais problem and on situations in which there are conflicts of value. Cases of unknowable value arising in transformative choice problems might be handled similarly.
引用
收藏
页码:283 / 300
页数:18
相关论文
共 7 条
[1]  
Buchak Lara, 2013, Risk and rationality
[2]   Rational preference: Decision theory as a theory of practical rationality [J].
Dreier, J .
THEORY AND DECISION, 1996, 40 (03) :249-276
[3]   RISK, AMBIGUITY, AND THE SAVAGE AXIOMS [J].
ELLSBERG, D .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1961, 75 (04) :643-669
[4]   THE PARADOXES OF ALLAIS AND ELLSBERG [J].
LEVI, I .
ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY, 1986, 2 (01) :23-53
[5]   A MORE ROBUST DEFINITION OF SUBJECTIVE-PROBABILITY [J].
MACHINA, MJ ;
SCHMEIDLER, D .
ECONOMETRICA, 1992, 60 (04) :745-780
[6]  
Paul LA, 2015, RES PHILOS, V92, P149
[7]  
PETTIT P., 1991, FDN DECISION THEORY, P147