Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:16:37.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Valuable Are Chances?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

H. Orri Stefánsson  and
Richard Bradley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chance Neutrality is the thesis that, conditional on some proposition being true (or being false), its chance of being true should be a matter of practical indifference. The aim of this article is to examine whether Chance Neutrality is a requirement of rationality. We prove that given Chance Neutrality, the Principal Principle entails a thesis called Linearity; the centerpiece of von Neumann and Morgenstern’s expected utility theory. With this in mind, we argue that the Principal Principle is a requirement of practical rationality but that Linearity is not and, hence, that Chance Neutrality is not rationally required.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 602 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

Footnotes

†

We would like the thank the audience at Bristol University and Stockholm University where this article was presented, as well as three referees for Philosophy of Science, for very helpful comments and suggestions. Stefánsson’s work on this article was supported by an AXA research grant (14-AXA-PDOC-222). Bradley’s work on this article was supported by grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/J006033/1, AH/I003118/1).

References

Allais, Maurice. 1953. “Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomesde l’ecole Americaine.” Econometrica 21 (4): 503–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armendt, Brad. 2014. “On Risk and Rationality.” Erkenntnis 79 (6): 1119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Richard. 1999. “Conditional Desirability.” Theory and Decision 47 (1): 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Richard 2016. “Ellsberg’s Paradox and the Value of Chances.” Economics and Philosophy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, and Orri Stefánsson, H.. 2016. “Counterfactual Desirability.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Broome, John. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, John 1999. “Can a Humean Be Moderate?” In Ethics out of Economics, 68–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchak, Lara. 2013. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Ned. 1994. “Correcting the Guide to Objective Chance.” Mind 103 (412): 505–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Bengt. 1988. “Risk Aversion as a Problem of Conjoint Measurement.” In Decision, Probability, and Utility, ed. Gärdenfors, Peter and Sahlin, Nils-Eric, 136–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John C. 1977. “On the Rationale of the Bayesian Approach: Comments on Professor Watkins’s Paper.” In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. Butts, Robert E. and Hintikka, Jaakko, 381–92. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. 2007. “The Third Way on Objective Probability: A Sceptic’s Guide to Objective Chance.” Mind 116 (463): 449–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard. 1983. The Logic of Decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1980. “A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance.” In Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, ed. Jeffrey, Richard, 263–93. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard 1994. “Humean Supervenience Debugged.” Mind 103 (412): 473–90.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard. 2012. “Accuracy, Chance, and the Principal Principle.” Philosophical Review 121 (2): 241–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard 2013. “A New Epistemic Utility Argument for the Principal Principle.” Episteme 10 (1): 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, John. 1982. “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 (5): 323–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, Matthew. 2000. “Risk Aversion and Expected Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem.” Econometrica 68 (5): 1281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Leonard. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Wakker, Peter. 1995. “Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights.” Econometrica 63 (6): 1255–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, John, and Morgenstern, Oskar. 1953. Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wakker, Peter. 2010. Prospect Theory: For Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, John W. N. 1977. “Towards a Unified Decision Theory: A Non-Bayesian Approach.” In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. Butts, Robert E. and Hintikka, Jaakko, 245–80. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar