Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T14:56:19.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstract rationality: the ‘logical’ structure of attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2023

Franz Dietrich Open the ORCID record for Franz Dietrich [Opens in a new window] ,
Antonios Staras  and
Robert Sugden Open the ORCID record for Robert Sugden [Opens in a new window]
Franz Dietrich*
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics & CNRS, Paris, France
Antonios Staras
Affiliation:
Institute of Economics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Robert Sugden
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Franz Dietrich; Email: fd@franzdietrich.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present an abstract model of rationality that focuses on structural properties of attitudes. Rationality requires coherence between your attitudes, such as your beliefs, values and intentions. We define three ‘logical’ conditions on attitudes: consistency, completeness and closedness. They parallel the familiar logical conditions on beliefs, but contrast with standard rationality conditions such as preference transitivity. We establish a formal correspondence between our logical conditions and standard rationality conditions. Addressing John Broome’s programme ‘rationality through reasoning’, we formally characterize how you can (not) become more logical by reasoning. Our analysis connects rationality with logic, and enables logical talk about multi-attitude psychology.

Keywords

Rationalitylogicchoice theoryattitudesreasoning
Type
Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2024 , pp. 12 - 41
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. 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.)

References

Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2014. What is reasoning? Philosophical Studies 169, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2018. Delimiting the boundaries of inference. Philosophical Issues 28, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 2007. Wide or narrow scope? Mind 116, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 2013. Rationality through Reasoning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2004. Putting Logic in its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2007. A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28, 529–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. 2016. Mentalism versus behaviourism in economics: a philosophy-of-science perspective. Economics and Philosophy 32, 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and Staras, A. 2022. Reasoning in attitudes. Synthese 200, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F., Staras, A. and Sugden, R. 2019. A Broomean model of rationality and reasoning. Journal of Philosophy 116, 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drucker, D. 2021. Reasoning beyond belief acquisition. Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, J.Y. 2017. Reasoning about Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1984. Logic and reasoning. Synthese 60, 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, J.F. 2001. Nonmonotonic logic. In The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. Goble, L., 336–361. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
King, J.C. 2019. Structured propositions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2019 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/propositions-structured/.Google Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2005. Why be rational? Mind 114, 509–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2007. State or process requirements? Mind 116, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, F. 2011. Reasoning about Preference Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. 1956. Logic, semantics and metamathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Hoek, W. and Wooldridge, M. 2003. Towards a logic of rational agency. Logic Journal of IGPL 11, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, P.C. and Evans, J.B. 1974. Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 3, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar