Abstract
Among various cases that equally admit of evidentialist reasoning, the supposedly evidentialist solution has varying degrees of intuitive attractiveness. I suggest that cooperative reasoning may account for the appeal of apparently evidentialist behavior in the cases in which it is intuitively attractive, while the inapplicability of cooperative reasoning may account for the unattractiveness of evidentialist behaviour in other cases. A collective causal power with respect to agreed outcomes, not evidentialist reasoning, makes cooperation attractive in the Prisoners' Dilemma. And a natural though unwarranted assumption of such a power may account for the intuitive appeal of the one-box response in Newcomb's Problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Campbell, Richmond and Lanning Sowden: 1985, Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Eells, E.: 1982, Rational Decision and Causality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Eells, E.: 1985, ‘Causality, Decision and Newcomb's Problem’, in Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden, (eds.), Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Gibbard, A. and W. L. Harper: 1985, ‘Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility’, in Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden, (eds.), Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Hacking, Ian: 1965, Logic of Statistical Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Horgan, Terence: 1985, ‘Counterfactuals and Newcomb's Problem’ and ‘Newcomb's Problem: A Stalemate’, both in Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden (eds.), Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Howard, J. V.: 1989, ‘Cooperation in the Prisoners' Dilemma’ (typescript, London School of Economics).
Hurley, S. L.: 1989, Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity, Oxford University Press, New York.
Levi, Isaac: 1975, ‘Newcomb's Many Problems’, Theory and Decision VI, 161–75.
Levi, Isaac: 1982, ‘A Note on Newcombmania’, Journal of Philosophy LXXIX, 337–42.
Levi, Isaac: 1983, ‘The Wrong Box’, Journal of Philosophy LXXX, 534–42.
Levi, Isaac: 1985, ‘Common Causes, Smoking, and Lung Cancer’, in Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden (eds.), Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Lewis, David: 1985, ‘Prisoners' Dilemma is a Newcomb Problem’, in Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden (eds.), Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Mackie, J. L.: 1985, ‘Newcomb's Problem and the Direction of Causation’, in his Logic and Knowledge, Selected Papers, Vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Nozick, F.: 1985, ‘Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice’, in Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden (eds.), Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Peirce, C. S.: 1955, ‘On the Doctrine of Chances, with Later Reflections’, in Justus Buchler (ed.), Philosophical Writings of Peirce, Dover Publications, New York.
Quattrone, G. A., and Amos Tversky: 1986, ‘Self-Deception and the Voter's Illusion’, in Jon Elster (ed.), The Multiple Self, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Regan, Donald: 1980, Utilitarianism and Co-operation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sen, A. K.: 1982, ‘Preference and the Concept of Choice’, in his Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Blackwell, Oxford.
Sen, A. K.: 1985, ‘Goals, Commitment, and Identity’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 1, 341–55.
Skyrms, Brian: 1984, Pragmatics and Empiricism, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Sobel, Jordan Howard: 1985, ‘Utilitarianism and Cooperation’, Dialogue XXIV, 137–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This paper was originally submitted to Synthese in March 1989. For helpful comments and criticisms of earlier versions I am grateful to Michael Bacharach, John Broome, David Gauthier, Isaac Levi, Adam Morton, Derek Parfit, Howard Sobel, Robert Sugden, Bas van Fraassen, and members of audiences on various occasions on which I have presented this paper. I am also grateful to the Humanities Council of Princeton University for their generous support during the period when this paper was written.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hurley, S.L. Newcomb's Problem, Prisoners' Dilemma, and collective action. Synthese 86, 173–196 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485806
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485806