Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    An option is self-ratifying if and only if it maximizes e... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The mixed strategy of flipping a coin is self-ratifying in the Death in Damascus case.

    An option is self-ratifying if and only if it maximizes expected utility given its realization.

    ConsequentialismModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ratification is defined in terms of an option's expected utility given its realization rather than given a decision to realize it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An option that maximizes expected utility given its own realization meets the ratification condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An option can be self-ratifying even when chosen for the wrong reasons, making ratification extensionally adequate but normatively vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Richard Jeffrey's evidential framework shows that conditioning on an option's realization can generate spurious expected utility boosts via evidential relevance rather than causal efficacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A decision procedure that endorses itself upon reflection does not thereby become rational; self-endorsement is not a sufficient criterion for rational choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Eells (1982) demonstrated that ratificationism can license intransitive preferences by permitting different self-ratifying options across structurally identical decision problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If multiple options are simultaneously self-ratifying in a single decision matrix, the criterion fails to uniquely prescribe action and collapses into permissivism rather than decision theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    A decision procedure that endorses itself upon reflection does not thereby becom...An option can be self-ratifying even when chosen for the wrong reasons, making r...An option that maximizes expected utility given its own realization meets the ra...Eells (1982) demonstrated that ratificationism can license intransitive preferen...
    +3 moreShow less
    If multiple options are simultaneously self-ratifying in a single decision matri...Ratification is defined in terms of an option's expected utility given its reali...Richard Jeffrey's evidential framework shows that conditioning on an option's re...

    Similar

    An option is self-ratifying if it maximizes expected utility given its...99%An option that maximizes expected utility given its own realization me...84%Ratification is defined in terms of an option's expected utility given...80%The mixed strategy of flipping a coin is self-ratifying in the Death i...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: decision-causal
    View source passageHide passage
    Weirich (1985) and Harper (1986) define ratification in terms of an option’s expected utility given its realization rather than given a decision to realize it. An option is self-ratifying if and only if it maximizes expected utility given its realization. This account of ratification accommodates cases in which an option and a decision to realize it have different expected utilities. Weirich and Harper also assume causal decision theory’s formula for expected utility. In the case of Death in Dam
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit