The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason
Expected-utility (EU) theory has been a popular and influential theory in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. While its original developers, von Neumann and Morgenstern, presented it as a purely predictive theory useful to the practitioners of economic science, many subsequent theorists, parti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Economics and philosophy 1994-10, Vol.10 (2), p.195-242 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 242 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 195 |
container_title | Economics and philosophy |
container_volume | 10 |
creator | Hampton, Jean |
description | Expected-utility (EU) theory has been a popular and influential theory in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. While its original developers, von Neumann and Morgenstern, presented it as a purely predictive theory useful to the practitioners of economic science, many subsequent theorists, particularly those outside of economics, have come to endorse EU theory as providing us with a representation of reason. But precisely in what sense does EU theory portray reason? And does it do so successfully? There are two strikingly different answers to these questions in the literature. On the one hand, there is the view of people such as David Gauthier that EU theory is an implementation of the idea that reason's only role is instrumental. On the other hand, there is the view suggested by Leonard Savage (1954/1972; and see Anderson, 1993) that the theory is a “formal” and noninstrumental characterization of our reasoning process. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266267100004739 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61366714</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266267100004739</cupid><sourcerecordid>38593729</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-1dfb9242b8702e3371467c2511151231f56cddf4affa8e0c727019efa9c78cbd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1KAzEUhYMoWKsP4G5AcDeam2SSCbixpa2iIGor7kKaSXTqtFOTKbRvb0qriCJmcwPnO_fnIHQM-AwwiPNHTDgnXACOjwkqd1ALmGApxiTfRa21nK71fXQQwgRjIFKwFroYvtqkr8tq4W1Su6S3nFvT2CIdNWVVNqsk6rVfJTok-vMfsQerQz07RHtOV8EebWsbjfq9Yfcqvb0bXHcvb1PDhGxSKNxYEkbGucDEUiqAcWFIBgAZEAou46YoHNPO6dxiI4jAIK3T0ojcjAvaRqebvnNfvy9saNS0DMZWlZ7ZehEUB8rjaexfkOaZpILICJ78ACf1ws_iESoGk2OeMbmmYEMZX4fgrVNzX061XynAah27-hV79KQbTxkau_wyaP-muKAiU3xwrwh97nSebriikafbGXo69mXxYr-t8ueUD4VnkEY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1298065499</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Hampton, Jean</creator><creatorcontrib>Hampton, Jean</creatorcontrib><description>Expected-utility (EU) theory has been a popular and influential theory in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. While its original developers, von Neumann and Morgenstern, presented it as a purely predictive theory useful to the practitioners of economic science, many subsequent theorists, particularly those outside of economics, have come to endorse EU theory as providing us with a representation of reason. But precisely in what sense does EU theory portray reason? And does it do so successfully? There are two strikingly different answers to these questions in the literature. On the one hand, there is the view of people such as David Gauthier that EU theory is an implementation of the idea that reason's only role is instrumental. On the other hand, there is the view suggested by Leonard Savage (1954/1972; and see Anderson, 1993) that the theory is a “formal” and noninstrumental characterization of our reasoning process.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-2671</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-0028</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266267100004739</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECPHEO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Essays ; Philosophy ; Rational Choice ; Reasoning ; Theoretical Problems ; Theories ; Utility theory</subject><ispartof>Economics and philosophy, 1994-10, Vol.10 (2), p.195-242</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-1dfb9242b8702e3371467c2511151231f56cddf4affa8e0c727019efa9c78cbd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-1dfb9242b8702e3371467c2511151231f56cddf4affa8e0c727019efa9c78cbd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267100004739/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27868,27923,27924,33774,55627</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hampton, Jean</creatorcontrib><title>The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason</title><title>Economics and philosophy</title><addtitle>Economics and Philosophy</addtitle><description>Expected-utility (EU) theory has been a popular and influential theory in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. While its original developers, von Neumann and Morgenstern, presented it as a purely predictive theory useful to the practitioners of economic science, many subsequent theorists, particularly those outside of economics, have come to endorse EU theory as providing us with a representation of reason. But precisely in what sense does EU theory portray reason? And does it do so successfully? There are two strikingly different answers to these questions in the literature. On the one hand, there is the view of people such as David Gauthier that EU theory is an implementation of the idea that reason's only role is instrumental. On the other hand, there is the view suggested by Leonard Savage (1954/1972; and see Anderson, 1993) that the theory is a “formal” and noninstrumental characterization of our reasoning process.</description><subject>Essays</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Rational Choice</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Theoretical Problems</subject><subject>Theories</subject><subject>Utility theory</subject><issn>0266-2671</issn><issn>1474-0028</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1KAzEUhYMoWKsP4G5AcDeam2SSCbixpa2iIGor7kKaSXTqtFOTKbRvb0qriCJmcwPnO_fnIHQM-AwwiPNHTDgnXACOjwkqd1ALmGApxiTfRa21nK71fXQQwgRjIFKwFroYvtqkr8tq4W1Su6S3nFvT2CIdNWVVNqsk6rVfJTok-vMfsQerQz07RHtOV8EebWsbjfq9Yfcqvb0bXHcvb1PDhGxSKNxYEkbGucDEUiqAcWFIBgAZEAou46YoHNPO6dxiI4jAIK3T0ojcjAvaRqebvnNfvy9saNS0DMZWlZ7ZehEUB8rjaexfkOaZpILICJ78ACf1ws_iESoGk2OeMbmmYEMZX4fgrVNzX061XynAah27-hV79KQbTxkau_wyaP-muKAiU3xwrwh97nSebriikafbGXo69mXxYr-t8ueUD4VnkEY</recordid><startdate>19941001</startdate><enddate>19941001</enddate><creator>Hampton, Jean</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HAGHG</scope><scope>HZAIM</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19941001</creationdate><title>The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason</title><author>Hampton, Jean</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-1dfb9242b8702e3371467c2511151231f56cddf4affa8e0c727019efa9c78cbd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Essays</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Rational Choice</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Theoretical Problems</topic><topic>Theories</topic><topic>Utility theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hampton, Jean</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 12</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 26</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Economics and philosophy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hampton, Jean</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason</atitle><jtitle>Economics and philosophy</jtitle><addtitle>Economics and Philosophy</addtitle><date>1994-10-01</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>195</spage><epage>242</epage><pages>195-242</pages><issn>0266-2671</issn><eissn>1474-0028</eissn><coden>ECPHEO</coden><abstract>Expected-utility (EU) theory has been a popular and influential theory in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. While its original developers, von Neumann and Morgenstern, presented it as a purely predictive theory useful to the practitioners of economic science, many subsequent theorists, particularly those outside of economics, have come to endorse EU theory as providing us with a representation of reason. But precisely in what sense does EU theory portray reason? And does it do so successfully? There are two strikingly different answers to these questions in the literature. On the one hand, there is the view of people such as David Gauthier that EU theory is an implementation of the idea that reason's only role is instrumental. On the other hand, there is the view suggested by Leonard Savage (1954/1972; and see Anderson, 1993) that the theory is a “formal” and noninstrumental characterization of our reasoning process.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266267100004739</doi><tpages>48</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-2671 |
ispartof | Economics and philosophy, 1994-10, Vol.10 (2), p.195-242 |
issn | 0266-2671 1474-0028 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61366714 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Essays Philosophy Rational Choice Reasoning Theoretical Problems Theories Utility theory |
title | The Failure of Expected-Utility Theory as a Theory of Reason |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T13%3A06%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Failure%20of%20Expected-Utility%20Theory%20as%20a%20Theory%20of%20Reason&rft.jtitle=Economics%20and%20philosophy&rft.au=Hampton,%20Jean&rft.date=1994-10-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=195&rft.epage=242&rft.pages=195-242&rft.issn=0266-2671&rft.eissn=1474-0028&rft.coden=ECPHEO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266267100004739&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E38593729%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1298065499&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266267100004739&rfr_iscdi=true |