Preferences: What We Can and Can’t Do with Them
Saved in:
| Title: | Preferences: What We Can and Can’t Do with Them |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Thoma, Johanna |
| Source: | Philosophia. 52:1269-1278 |
| Publisher Information: | Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024. |
| Publication Year: | 2024 |
| Subject Terms: | Diachronic rationality, Preferences, 05 social sciences, Practical rationality, Instrumental rationality, 06 humanities and the arts, 0603 philosophy, ethics and religion, Dynamic choice, 0506 political science |
| Description: | In her Choosing Well, Chrisoula Andreou puts forth an account of instrumental rationality that is revisionary in two respects. First, it changes the goalpost or standard of instrumental rationality to include “categorial” appraisal responses, alongside preferences, which are relational. Second, her account is explicitly diachronic, applying to series of choices as well as isolated ones. Andreou takes both revisions to be necessary for dealing with problematic choice scenarios agents with disorderly preferences might find themselves in. Focusing on problem cases involving cyclical preferences, I will first argue that her first revision is undermotivated once we accept the second. If we are willing to grant that there are diachronic rationality constraints, the preference-based picture can get us further than Andreou acknowledges. I will then turn to present additional grounds for rejecting the preference-based picture. However, these grounds also seem to undermine Andreou’s own appeal to categorial appraisal responses. |
| Document Type: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| ISSN: | 1574-9274 0048-3893 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11406-024-00794-6 |
| DOI: | 10.15495/epub_ubt_00008275 |
| Rights: | CC BY |
| Accession Number: | edsair.doi.dedup.....af3f30d962c67a8b97bb46cf7efcd7cb |
| Database: | OpenAIRE |
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | In her Choosing Well, Chrisoula Andreou puts forth an account of instrumental rationality that is revisionary in two respects. First, it changes the goalpost or standard of instrumental rationality to include “categorial” appraisal responses, alongside preferences, which are relational. Second, her account is explicitly diachronic, applying to series of choices as well as isolated ones. Andreou takes both revisions to be necessary for dealing with problematic choice scenarios agents with disorderly preferences might find themselves in. Focusing on problem cases involving cyclical preferences, I will first argue that her first revision is undermotivated once we accept the second. If we are willing to grant that there are diachronic rationality constraints, the preference-based picture can get us further than Andreou acknowledges. I will then turn to present additional grounds for rejecting the preference-based picture. However, these grounds also seem to undermine Andreou’s own appeal to categorial appraisal responses. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 15749274 00483893 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11406-024-00794-6 |