Newcomb's paradox and Priest's principle of rational choice

Abstract

Priest (2002) gives an intriguing analysis of Newcomb's paradox. He argues that the Newcomb situations, situations described to present the paradox, are rational dilemmas namely, situations in which rationality requires you to do two incompatible things. In this paper, I aim to show that the argument fails because there are good reasons for rejecting the principle of rational choice that it rests on.' In doing so, I distinguish the disputed principle from an intuitively plausible principle and argue that one cannot identify them without assuming a wrong analysis of the notion of consequence of action. I think that the discussions in this paper point to a resolution of Newcomb's paradox, but I leave it for another occasion to spell it out.