Philosophical Studies 173 (1):205-221 (2016)

Tina Rulli
University of California, Davis
Alex Worsnip
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
The independence of irrelevant alternatives is a popular and important axiom of decision theory. It states, roughly, that one’s choice from a set of options should not be influenced by the addition or removal of further, unchosen options. In recent debates, a number of authors have given putative counterexamples to it, involving intuitively rational agents who violate IIA. Generally speaking, however, these counterexamples do not tend to move IIA’s proponents. Their strategy tends to be to individuate the options that the agent faces differently, so that the case no longer counts as a violation of IIA. In this paper, we examine whether this strategy succeeds. We argue that the ways of individuating options required to save IIA from the most problematic counterexamples—in particular, cases where agents violate IIA due to nonconsequentialist moral beliefs—do so only at the expense of severely compromising its central function within decision theory
Keywords Independence of irrelevant alternatives  Decision theory  Nonconsequentialism  Preferences  Rationality
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-015-0481-6
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,657
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Limits of Morality.Shelly Kagan - 1989 - Oxford University Press.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Partial Aggregation in Ethics.Joe Horton - 2021 - Philosophy Compass 16 (3):1-12.
Exploitation and Effective Altruism.Daniel Muñoz - 2021 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 20 (4):409-423.
What We Choose, What We Prefer.Brian Kogelmann - 2018 - Synthese 195 (7):3221-3240.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Revisited.Susumu Cato - 2014 - Theory and Decision 76 (4):511-527.
Gandalf’s Solution to the Newcomb Problem.Ralph Wedgwood - 2013 - Synthese 190 (14):2643–2675.
Where Do Preferences Come From?Franz Dietrich & Christian List - 2013 - International Journal of Game Theory 42 (3):613-637.
Games Machines Play.Wynn C. Stirling - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (3):327-352.
Wer hat ein Problem mit irrationalen Präferenzen? Entscheidungstheorie und Überlegungsgleichgewicht.Georg Brun - 2009 - Studia Philosophica: Jahrbuch Der Schweizerischen Philosoph Ischen Gesellschaft, Annuaire de la Société Suisse de Philosphie 68:11-41.
Ambivalent Desires and the Problem with Reduction.Derek Clayton Baker - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 150 (1):37-47.
Decision Theory and the Rationality of Further Deliberation.Igor Douven - 2002 - Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):303-328.
Unanimity and Resource Monotonicity.Biung-Ghi Ju - 2005 - Theory and Decision 59 (1):1-17.


Added to PP index

Total views
143 ( #77,088 of 2,462,325 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #70,845 of 2,462,325 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes