Expected Utility Theory Research Papers (original) (raw)

construct arguments in which they evaluate and discuss the intricacies of decision making in choices which might affect our lives substantially. Some decisions we must make in our lives, Paul argues, are inescapable from a certain kind of irrationality which fundamentally involves the impossibility of gaining epistemic knowledge of how an experience will change us, until we have the experience. Ruth Chang, on the other hand, describes a philosophy consistent with the idea that any major life decision we are faced with allows us an opportunity to actively shape our own identities. Many thinkers assert that Paul and Chang have completely opposing views; this, in a sense, is a misguided view. I argue that although the two philosophies in question may disagree on the nature of the interaction between human beings and important life decisions, they describe the issue on opposite sides of the same coin. Furthermore, I defend Paul's argument and assert that major life decisions cannot truly be made with complete rationality due to the very nature of how decisions change us in altering our preferences, desires, and motivations in unpredictable ways. I also argue that Chang's philosophy offers an intriguing exploration of the potential of humans in controlling their life directions, but is flawed in that it fails to account for the inherently inaccessible epistemic knowledge involved in making certain choices. Additionally, Chang does not make an effort to address the notion that major life-decisions which lead to major experiences change us in significant ways which cannot be predicted due to this epistemic inaccess. Paul argues that there are two primary types of experiences: those that are epistemically transformative, and those that are personally transformative. Epistemically transformative experiences entail the attainment of knowledge exclusively available via undergoing any given experience. For example, one cannot truly understand or know what tasting chocolate ice cream is like until one actually has the experience. Although there are various methods by which we might attempt to gain such knowledge, for instance, gathering testimony from others and engaging in mental simulations which emulate what the experience might be like, none of them can convey the subjective, unique experience innately attached to the experiential element. Essentially, there exists an inherent subjectivity in experience; therefore, there is a key difference between intellectual understanding and epistemic understanding. The second, more dramatic type of experience is a personally transformative one. These experiences change us in influential ways; they might change our perspectives by altering preferences, desires, and motivations. Thus, if someone makes the choice to undergo what turns out to be a personally transformative experience, it will change him in a way which could possibly make him regret the life circumstances making the said decision would place him in. This critical point supports the notion that we cannot rationally make decisions in life-changing choices. Any given experience interacts in a unique way with any given individual; no one might experience the same impact given the same experience. This fact is rooted in the observation that our cognitions innately vary from one person to the next, along with our perceptions. These irrevocable differences among humans make it feasible to conclude that one cannot fully know or expect to understand the subjective value of any experience. In this way, Paul makes a strong argument that in making decisions among important life choices, we always lack this influential piece of information. The capacity of personally transformative experiences to alter either partially or entirely the direction of one's life by " morphing " psychological states is powerful. Such morphing can be either immediate or gradual, depending on circumstantial characteristics. For example, having a baby can change someone in a principal way immediately; the feeling of having the responsibility to raise and protect another human being or simply the power in seeing one's genes passed on may be enough to change someone immediately. This change can be positive or negative; to one person, having a child can