Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8mwbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-05T06:53:27.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision under normative uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2021

Franz Dietrich Open the ORCID record for Franz Dietrich [Opens in a new window]  and
Brian Jabarian
Franz Dietrich*
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics & CNRS, 106-112 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France
Brian Jabarian*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 17 Rue de la Sorbonne, 75005 Paris, France
*
Emails: fd@franzdietrich.net; brianjabarian@gmail.com
Emails: fd@franzdietrich.net; brianjabarian@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

normative and empirical uncertaintygeneral frameworknormative uncertainty versus identity uncertainty in Harsanyi and Rawlsmaximizing expected valueex ante versus ex post perspective

Information

Type
Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , November 2022 , pp. 372 - 394
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baccelli, J. 2018. Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory – a conceptual perspective. Theory and Decision 84, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, C. and Tomlin, P. 2016. Moral uncertainty and permissibility: evaluating option sets. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 46, 898–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. and Weymark, J. 2004. Utility in social choice. In Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 2: Extensions, ed. Barberà, S., Hammond, P. and Seidl, C., 1099–1177. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. and Drechsler, M. 2014. Types of uncertainty. Erkenntnis 79, 1225–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchak, L. 2013. Risk Aversion and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P.A. 1967. Cardinal welfare, individual ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility: comment. Journal of Political Economy 75. https://doi.org/10.1086/259353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and Jabarian, B. 2021 a. Axiomatic foundations of normative uncertainty. Working paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and Jabarian, B. 2021 b. The risk attitude under normative uncertainty. Working paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. 2013. A reason-based theory of rational choice. Noûs 47, 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. 2017. What matters and how it matters: a choice-theoretic representation of moral theories. Philosophical Review 126, 421–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2010. Assessing risky social situations. Journal of Political Economy 118, 649–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Mongin, P. 2016. The utilitarian relevance of the aggregation theorem. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 8, 289–306.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Voorhoeve, A. 2016. Priority or equality for possible people? Ethics 126, 929–954.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Zuber, S. 2017. Fair management of social risk. Journal of Economic Theory 169, 666–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, S., Kajii, A., Polak, B. and Safra, Z. 2010. Generalized utilitarianism and Harsanyi’s impartial observer theorem. Econometrica 78, 1939–1971.Google Scholar
Grant, S., Kajii, A., Polak, B. and Safra, Z. 2012. Equally-distributed equivalent utility, ex post egalitarianism and utilitarianism. Journal of Economic Theory 147, 1545–1571.Google Scholar
Greaves, H. 2017. A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen–Weymark debate on utilitarianism. Utilitas 29, 175–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, H. and Cotton-Barratt, O. 2019. A bargaining-theoretic approach to moral uncertainty. GPI Working Paper No. 4-2019.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.P. and Sargent, T.J. 2001. Robust control and model uncertainty. American Economic Review 91, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1975. Review: can the Maximin Principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s theory. American Political Science Review 69, 594–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1978. Bayesian decision theory and utilitarian ethics. American Economic Review 68, 223–228.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. and Smith, M. 2006. Absolutist moral theories and uncertainty. Journal of Philosophy 103, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazar, S. 2017. Deontological decision theory and agent-centred options. Ethics 127, 579–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, T. 2000. Moral Uncertainty and its Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacAskill, W. 2014. Normative Uncertainty. Doctoral thesis, University of Oxford. http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MacAskill-Normative-Uncertainty.pdf.Google Scholar
MacAskill, W. 2016. Normative uncertainty as a voting problem. Mind 125, 967–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacAskill, W. and Ord, T. 2020. Why maximize expected choice-worthiness? Noûs 54, 327–353.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2006. Utilitarianism and prioritarianism I. Economics and Philosophy 22, 335–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2008. Utilitarianism and prioritarianism II. Economics and Philosophy 24, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2015. Distributive equality. Mind 124, 1045–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissan-Rozen, I. 2015. Against moral hedging. Economics and Philosophy 31, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, G. 1994. Moral uncertainty and human embryo experimentation. In Medicine and Moral Reasoning, ed. Fulford, K.W.M., Gillett, G. and Soskice, J.M., 3–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Podgorski, A. 2019. Normative uncertainty and the dependence problem. Mind 129, 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedener, S. 2020. An axiomatic approach to axiological uncertainty. Philosophical Studies 177, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. 2006. Rejecting ethical deflationism. Ethics 116, 742–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, T. and Voorhoeve, A. 2018. Egalitarianism under severe uncertainty. Philosophy and Public Affairs 46, 239–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L.J. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2009. What to do when you don’t know what to do. In Oxford Studies in Metaethics, ed. Shafer-Landau, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefánsson, O. and Bradley, R. 2017. What is risk aversion? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarsney, C. 2018 a. Moral uncertainty for deontologists. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21, 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarsney, C. 2018 b. Intertheoretic value comparison: a modest proposal. Journal of Moral Philosophy 15, 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarsney, C. 2019. Normative uncertainty and social choice. Mind 128, 1285–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, S. 2017. Action, deontology, and risk: against the multiplicative model. Ethics 127, 674–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2014. Running risks morally. Philosophical Studies 167, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weirich, P. 1986. Expected utility and risk. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weymark, J. 1991. A reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen debate on utilitarianism. In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, J. and Roemer, J.E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yaari, M.E. 1987. The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar