Two-boxing is irrational
Philosophers debate whether one-boxing or two-boxing is the rational act in a Newcomb situation. I shall argue that one-boxing is the only rational choice. This is so because there is no intelligible aim by reference to which you can justify the choice of two-boxing over one-boxing once you have com...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35739/ |
| _version_ | 1848795151182331904 |
|---|---|
| author | Noonan, Harold |
| author_facet | Noonan, Harold |
| author_sort | Noonan, Harold |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Philosophers debate whether one-boxing or two-boxing is the rational act in a Newcomb situation. I shall argue that one-boxing is the only rational choice. This is so because there is no intelligible aim by reference to which you can justify the choice of two-boxing over one-boxing once you have come to think that you will two-box (whereas there is such an aim by reference to which you can justify one-boxing). The only aim by which the agent in the Newcomb situation can justify his two-boxing is the subjunctively described aim of ‘getting more than I would if I were to one-box’. But such a subjunctively described aim can justify an action only if it can be seen as generating, in conjunction with the agent’s beliefs, an indicatively describable aim which justifies the action. In the case of the Newcomb agent the aim of 'getting more than I would if I were to one-box’ cannot be seen in this way. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:27:31Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-35739 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:27:31Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Springer |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-357392020-05-04T17:02:14Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35739/ Two-boxing is irrational Noonan, Harold Philosophers debate whether one-boxing or two-boxing is the rational act in a Newcomb situation. I shall argue that one-boxing is the only rational choice. This is so because there is no intelligible aim by reference to which you can justify the choice of two-boxing over one-boxing once you have come to think that you will two-box (whereas there is such an aim by reference to which you can justify one-boxing). The only aim by which the agent in the Newcomb situation can justify his two-boxing is the subjunctively described aim of ‘getting more than I would if I were to one-box’. But such a subjunctively described aim can justify an action only if it can be seen as generating, in conjunction with the agent’s beliefs, an indicatively describable aim which justifies the action. In the case of the Newcomb agent the aim of 'getting more than I would if I were to one-box’ cannot be seen in this way. Springer 2015-02-22 Article PeerReviewed Noonan, Harold (2015) Two-boxing is irrational. Philosophia, 43 (2). pp. 455-462. ISSN 1574-9274 Newcomb Two-boxing Decision theory http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11406-015-9589-3 doi:10.1007/s11406-015-9589-3 doi:10.1007/s11406-015-9589-3 |
| spellingShingle | Newcomb Two-boxing Decision theory Noonan, Harold Two-boxing is irrational |
| title | Two-boxing is irrational |
| title_full | Two-boxing is irrational |
| title_fullStr | Two-boxing is irrational |
| title_full_unstemmed | Two-boxing is irrational |
| title_short | Two-boxing is irrational |
| title_sort | two-boxing is irrational |
| topic | Newcomb Two-boxing Decision theory |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35739/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35739/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35739/ |