Abstract
Causal decision theory (CDT) is one of our most prominent theories of rational choice and the “why ain’cha rich?” argument (WAR) is one of the most prominent objections to this theory. According to WAR, CDT is not an adequate theory of rational choice because it leads agents to make decisions that foreseeably leave them less well off than agents that decide in some other manner. Some philosophers take WAR to decisively undermine CDT. On the other hand, others (including David Lewis and Terry Horgan) take WAR to fail to resolve the debate over CDT’s adequacy. In this paper, I will defend this second view: WAR does not resolve the debate at hand but instead leads to deadlock. Then, in the second half of this paper, I will show that this deadlock is not broken by a recent variant on WAR due to Caspar Hare and Brian Hedden. Not only does this result have implications for the debate over CDT’s adequacy but this discussion also casts light on the broader success/rationality link.
Highlights
It is clear that practical rationality and success are closely linked: a practically rational agent will be more successful than a practically irrational agent in a wide range of circumstances
In the second half, I will show that this deadlock is not overturned by an argument due to Hare and Hedden (2016). Do these results provide insight into why ain’cha rich?” argument (WAR) but they cast broader light on what it would take to run a success-based argument against a theory of choice
For WAR to succeed we must reject this account of difference making and so must effectively assume causal decision theory (CDT)’s falsity up front
Summary
It is clear that practical rationality and success are closely linked: a practically rational agent will be more successful than a practically irrational agent in a wide range of circumstances. Successbased arguments for the rationality of a decision sometimes fail With this in mind, in this paper I will consider a controversial success-based argument: the “why ain’cha rich?” argument (WAR) against causal decision theory (CDT), one of our most prominent theories of rational choice. In this paper I will consider a controversial success-based argument: the “why ain’cha rich?” argument (WAR) against causal decision theory (CDT), one of our most prominent theories of rational choice On one view, this argument decisively undermines CDT In the second half, I will show that this deadlock is not overturned by an argument due to Hare and Hedden (2016) Do these results provide insight into WAR but they cast broader light on what it would take to run a success-based argument against a theory of choice
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
