Revisiting Risk and Rationality: a reply to Pettigrew and Briggs

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (5):841-862 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I have claimed that risk-weighted expected utility maximizers are rational, and that their preferences cannot be captured by expected utility theory. Richard Pettigrew and Rachael Briggs have recently challenged these claims. Both authors argue that only EU-maximizers are rational. In addition, Pettigrew argues that the preferences of REU-maximizers can indeed be captured by EU theory, and Briggs argues that REU-maximizers lose a valuable tool for simplifying their decision problems. I hold that their arguments do not succeed and that my original claims still stand. However, their arguments do highlight some costs of REU theory
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-12-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Credal Dilemmas.Moss, Sarah
Accuracy and Evidence.Pettigrew, Richard

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Why Take Both Boxes?Spencer, Jack & Wells, Ian

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total downloads
342 ( #7,177 of 37,122 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #10,455 of 37,122 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.