Abstract
According to classical decision theory, an agent realises at time t the option with maximum expected utility (determined by his beliefs and desires at t), where the relevant options are possible actions performed at t. I consider an alternative according to which the relevant options are in general plans, complex courses of action extending into the future.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hammond, P. (1976). Changing tastes and coherent dynamic choice. Review of Economic Studies, 43, 159–173.
Hammond, P. (1988). Consequentialist foundations for expected utility. Theory and Decision, 25, 25–78.
Jackson, F., & Pargetter, J. (1986). Oughts, options, and actualism. Philosophical Review, 95, 233–255.
Levi, I. (1991). Consequentialism and sequential choice. In Bacharach M., & Hurley S. (eds.), Foundations of decision theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 92–122.
Lewis, D. (1981). Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59, 5–30.
McDermott, M. (1999). Counterfactuals and access points. Mind, 108, 291–334.
Pollock, J. (2003). Rational choice and action omnipotence. Philosophical Review, 111, 1–23.
Pollock, J. (2005). Plans and decisions. Theory and Decision, 57, 79–107.
Rabinowicz, W. (2002). Does practical deliberation crowd out self-prediction?. Erkenntnis, 57, 91–122.
Spohn, W. (1977). Where Luce and Krantz do really generalize savage’s decision model. Erkenntnis, 11, 113–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McDermott, M. Are Plans Necessary?. Philos Stud 138, 225–232 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9033-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9033-4