Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T23:35:45.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NON-REASONED DECISION-MAKING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2014

Peter Stone
Peter Stone*
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, Irelandpstone@tcd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human behaviour, like everything else, has causes. Most of the time, those causes can be described as reasons. Human beings perform actions because they have reasons for performing them. They are capable of surveying the options available and then selecting one based upon those reasons. But invariably occasions arise in which the reasons known to the agent fail to single out a determinate option. When reasons cannot determine the option to select on their own, the agent must resort to some form of non-reasoned decision-making (NRDM). This paper distinguishes four different forms of NRDM – picking, randomizing, deferring and judging. Each form may be appropriate under different circumstances. The paper concludes by laying out the theoretical assumptions upon which this account of NRDM rests.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 195 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arpaly, N. 2000. On acting rationally against one's best judgment. Ethics 110: 488–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, M. 2001. Choice without preference: a study of decision making in Buridan problems. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Chang, R., ed. 1997. Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 2001. Making Comparisons Count. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, NY: Putnam.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1980. Actions, reasons, and causes. In Essays on Actions and Events, 3–19. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Sousa, R. 1987. The Rationality of Emotion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2009. A reason-based theory of rational choice. Working Paper, Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science (CPNSS), London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1984. Ulysses and the Sirens, Revised edn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1986. Introduction. In Rational Choice, ed. Elster, J., 1–33. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1989. Solomonic Judgments. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1999. Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gataker, T. 2008. The Nature and Use of Lotteries. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Gert, J. 2003. Requiring and justifying: two dimensions of normative strength. Erkenntnis 59: 5–36.Google Scholar
Gert, J. 2007. Normative strength and the balance of reasons. Philosophical Review 116: 533–562.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Hofstee, W.K.B. 1990. Allocation by lot: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Social Science Information 29: 745–763. Reprinted in Stone, ed. (2011b).Google Scholar
Horsey, R. 2002. The art of chicken sexing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, J. 1929. The judgment intuitive: the function of the ‘hunch’ in judicial decision. Cornell Law Quarterly 14: 274–288.Google Scholar
Knight, F. 2002. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Washington, DC: Beard Books.Google Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2005. Why be rational? Mind 114: 509–563.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L. and Sager, L.. 1988. Just lotteries. Social Science Information 27: 483–516. Reprinted in Stone, ed. (2011b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, J. 1965. Choosing flippantly or non-rational choice. Analysis 25 Supplement: 132–136.Google Scholar
Meehan, E. 1988. The Thinking Game: A Guide to Effective Study. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 1983. The lost wanderers of Descartes and the auxiliary motive. In Philosophical Papers 1913–1946. Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1959–60. Choice without preference. Kant-Studien 51: 142–175.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. 2005. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. New York, NY: Ecco.Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2007. Why lotteries are just. Journal of Political Philosophy 15: 276–295.Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2009. The logic of random selection. Political Theory 37: 375–397.Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2010. Three arguments for lotteries. Social Science Information 49: 147–163.Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2011a. The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, P., ed. 2011b. Lotteries in Public Life: A Reader. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2012. Varieties of indeterminacy. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 6: 107–116.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. and Ullmann-Margalit, E.. 1999. Second-order decisions. Ethics 110: 5–31.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1985. Opting: the case of ‘big’ decisions. Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin: Jahrbuch, 441–454.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. 2006. Big decisions: opting, converting, drifting. In Political Philosophy ed. A. O'Hear, 157–172. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. and Morgenbesser, S.. 1977. Picking and choosing. Social Research 44: 757–785.Google Scholar