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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If an agent is averse to risk, the risk generated by a risky act must be included in each of that act's possible outcomes

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Risk aversion is already captured in the shape of an agent's utility function over outcomes, not in the outcomes themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Folding risk into outcomes double-counts aversion already expressed by diminishing marginal utility, violating von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Jeffrey's evidential decision theory treats desirability as defined over propositions, leaving no coherent slot for risk as a separable outcome component.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Savage's framework strictly separates states, acts, and consequences, and risk is a feature of the act-state mapping, not of consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating risk as an outcome component conflates the epistemic status of uncertainty with the metaphysical content of what actually obtains, a category error Luce and Raiffa's 1957 analysis explicitly warns against.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Risk aversion is a relevant consideration for an agent's utility
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The expected-utility principle requires all relevant considerations to be included in outcomes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Including risk in an outcome tends to lower that outcome's utility
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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