UC Irvine

Over the past 40 years, decision theorists have produced an impressive body of literature employing dynamic choice arguments to defend the standard principles of Bayesian decision theory, with Peter Hammond's work serving as the locus classicus. However, examination of the import of these arguments has largely been restricted to the context of Savage-style decision theories that posit a sharp distinction between acts, states, and outcomes, while the more general framework developed in Richard Jeffrey's Logic of Decision has remained mostly neglected. This is remarkable given both the widely recognized appeal of dynamic choice arguments and the broad popularity that Jeffrey's framework enjoys among philosophical decision theorists. My dissertation aims to remedy this situation by extracting and defending what I take to be the core insights of dynamic choice arguments and exploring their significance in the context of Jeffrey-style decision theories.