Agent-Regret and Regret Consequentialism
full account of the main differences between regret and self-reproach in section 4.
To approach this debate systematically, I will consider four types of cases that
exhaust logical space: (1) good deliberation/good outcome; (2) bad deliberation/good
outcome; (3) good deliberation/bad outcome; (4) bad deliberation/bad outcome. I
aim to identify what is essential to regret. By ‘essential’, I mean: What are the
necessary and sufficient conditions for regret to be fitting? The cases can be
represented as follows.
Is Regret Fitting?
Good Outcome
Bad Outcome
Good Deliberation
?
?
Bad Deliberation
?
?
I will argue that each case is either neutral (Case 1) or best interpreted as
supporting regret consequentialism over regret deontology (Cases 2-4).
Case 1: Good Deliberation/ Good Outcome
Rock/Paper/Scissors : Someone challenges you to a game of
rock/paper/scissors. If you win, you get $10. If they win, you lose nothing.
You accept and win, netting yourself $10.
Imagine you regret your decision to play. Is your regret fitting? Clearly not, but
why? Regret deontologists will argue that regret is unfitting because you made no
deliberative error. You chose the highest expected value among the available
options, so you made the best decision. Thus, your regret is unfitting. By contrast,
regret consequentialists will argue that regret is unfitting since you won $10. Your
decision had the highest actual value of all the available options, meaning it
resulted in the best outcome. Both regret deontologists and regret
consequentialists agree with the commonsense intuition that regret is unfitting
Volume VI (2023)
42
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker