A formal framework for deliberated judgment
From MaRDI portal
Publication:2300615
Abstract: While the philosophical literature has extensively studied how decisions relate to arguments, reasons and justifications, decision theory almost entirely ignores the latter notions and rather focuses on preference and belief. In this article, we argue that decision theory can largely benefit from explicitly taking into account the stance that decision-makers take towards arguments and counter-arguments. To that end, we elaborate a formal framework aiming to integrate the role of arguments and argumentation in decision theory and decision aid. We start from a decision situation, where an individual requests decision support. In this context, we formally define, as a commendable basis for decision-aid, this individual's deliberated judgment, popularized by Rawls. We explain how models of deliberated judgment can be validated empirically. We then identify conditions upon which the existence of a valid model can be taken for granted, and analyze how these conditions can be relaxed. We then explore the significance of our proposed framework for decision aiding practice. We argue that our concept of deliberated judgment owes its normative credentials both to its normative foundations (the idea of rationality based on arguments) and to its reference to empirical reality (the stance that real, empirical individuals hold towards arguments and counter-arguments, on due reflection). We then highlight that our framework opens promising avenues for future research involving both philosophical and decision theoretic approaches, as well as empirical implementations.
Recommendations
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 52447
- A formal theory of justifications
- Axioms for deliberative stit
- Cognitive reasoning. A formal approach
- Formalizing the consistency of experts' judgments in the Delphi method
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1786483
- A general method for deciding about logically constrained issues
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2086323
Cites work
- A General Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation
- A general framework for explaining the results of a multi-attribute preference model
- A reason-based theory of rational choice
- A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments
- An approach to decision making based on dynamic argumentation systems
- Computational models of argument (COMMA 2010). Proceedings of 3rd conference, Desanzano del Garda, Italy, September 2010.
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3735506 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3434895 (Why is no real title available?)
- Model legitimisation in operational research
- Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Transl. from the French by Mark R. McCord
- On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics
- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games
- Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks
- Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation
- Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms
- Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics
- Using arguments for making and explaining decisions
Cited in
(2)
This page was built for publication: A formal framework for deliberated judgment
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2300615)
