Arguments Against Hacking Assertions

Philosophy 220: Essay 2
In this essay I will be arguing against Hacking assertions about the rationality of actions and beliefs made under the principle of maximizing expected utility paying particular attention to the question of rationality of actions such as gambling within decision theory. I will also be arguing that the principle of maximizing expected utility can be used a lot more than he seems to assert in his writings without being dogmatic if you take into consideration of the more things when applying the principle of maximizing expected utility. I will do this by looking at various arguments for this position and then looking at some counter arguments and trying to show why they do not invalidate my hypothesis and then I will summarize my argument in a conclusion.
The first part of my argument is that the principle of maximizing expected utility is …show more content…
I do agree that all utility can’t be measured by dollar value I would argue that dollars are very useful in achieving utility so if you are unable to measure the expected utility to a sufficient standard then the dollar value is a very good tool for approximating what decision to make to and therefore you are able to adhere to the principle of maximizing expected utility.
Another counter argument for the use of maximizing expected utility could be that it would be hard to know exactly what variables may arise in the long term as you could make a decision where you make a decision that seems like it would maximize you utility under the principle of maximizing expected utility. This means that if in fact other unknown variables lead to that being a decision that didn’t maximize your expected utility meaning that this rule would be have failed in making the best decision for