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
    Using an act's expected utility to assess a decision to p... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Using an act's expected utility to assess a decision to perform the act leads to faulty evaluations of decisions.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Expected utility calculations assign probabilities to outcomes based on the agent's epistemic state, not the act's causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Jeffrey's evidential decision theory shows that act-evaluation via expected utility conflates evidential relevance with causal efficacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Newcomb's Problem demonstrates that maximizing expected utility can recommend dominated strategies, violating basic rationality norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Savage's framework requires that utility be assigned to outcomes of acts, not to the deliberative processes that produce those acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When a decision is the unit of evaluation, the partition of states must be redefined, generating arbitrariness in probability assignments across decision branches.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A decision and the act it selects are distinct entities and may have different consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A decision may fail to generate the act it selects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the expected utility of a decision may differ from the expected utility of the act the decision selects.
      ?

      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

    Consequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    A decision and the act it selects are distinct entities and may have different c...A decision may fail to generate the act it selects.Expected utility calculations assign probabilities to outcomes based on the agen...Jeffrey's evidential decision theory shows that act-evaluation via expected util...
    +4 moreShow less
    Newcomb's Problem demonstrates that maximizing expected utility can recommend do...Savage's framework requires that utility be assigned to outcomes of acts, not to...Therefore, the expected utility of a decision may differ from the expected utili...When a decision is the unit of evaluation, the partition of states must be redef...

    Similar

    Evaluating a decision by an act's expected utility leads to faulty eva...94%Therefore, the expected utility of a decision may differ from the expe...85%An act's expected utility is a probability-weighted average of possibl...82%A decision's expected utility depends on the probability of its execut...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: decision-causal
    View source passageHide passage
    Causal decision theory’s account of self-ratification may put aside Jeffrey’s method of evaluating a decision by evaluating the act it selects. Because the decision and the act differ, they may have different consequences. For example, a decision may fail to generate the act it selects. Hence, the decision’s expected utility may differ from the act’s expected utility. Driving through a flooded section of highway may have high expected utility because it minimizes travel time to one’s destination
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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