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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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