Advertisement

Do pragmatic arguments show too much?

  • Martin PetersonEmail author
Original paper in Decision and Game Theory

Abstract

Pragmatic arguments seek to demonstrate that you can be placed in a situation in which you will face a sure and foreseeable loss if you do not behave in accordance with some principle P. In this article I show that for every P entailed by the principle of maximizing expected utility you will not be better off from a pragmatic point of view if you accept P than if you don’t, because even if you obey the axioms of expected utility theory it is possible to place you in a situation in which you will face a certain and foreseeable loss. This shows that for a large class of Ps, there is no pragmatic difference between people who accept P and those who don’t.

Keywords

Pragmatic argument Decision theory Money pump 

References

  1. Arntzenius, F., Elga, A., & Hawthorne, J. (2004). Bayesianism, infinite decisions, and binding. Mind, 113(450), 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, A (1964), The elements of stochastic processes with applications to the natural sciences. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, J., & Arntzenius, F. (1999). An infinite decision puzzle. Theory and Decision, 46(1), 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, J., & Arntzenius, F. (2002). Why the infinite decision puzzle is puzzling. Theory and Decision, 52(2), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Machina, M. (2000). Barrett and Arntzenius’s infinite decision puzzle. Theory and Decision, 49(3), 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McClennen, E. F. (1990). Rationality and dynamic choice: Foundational explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McGee, V. (1991). An airtight Dutch book. Analysis, 59(4), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peterson, M. (2007). Parity, clumpiness, and rational choic. Utilitas, 19, 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peterson, M. (2015). Prospectism and the weak money pump argument. Theory and Decision, 78, 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rabinowicz, W. (2000), Money Pump with Foresight. In M. J. Almeida (Ed.), Imperceptible harms and benefits (pp. 123–54). Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Schick, F. (1986). Dutch bookies and money pumps. The Journal of Philosophy, 83, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Fraassen, B. C. (1984). Belief and the will. The Journal of Philosophy, 81, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams, D. (1991). Probability with martingales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations