Aptness and means-end coherence: a dominance argument for causal decision theory

Why should we be means-end rational? Why care whether someone's mental states meet certain formal patterns, like the ones formalized in causal decision theory? This paper establishes a dominance argument for these constraints in a finite setting. If you violate the norms of causal decision theory, that your desires will be aptness dominated. That is, there will be some alternative set of desires that you could have had, which would be more apt (closer to the actual values fixed by your sensibility/what you intrinsically care about) no matter which world is actual. If we care about having apt desires, then, we should never let ourselves violate the means-end rationality norms. This argument shares a form with now-standard accuracy arguments for probabilism, opening up a new terrain for that discussion. I show that the foundational assumptions about the shape of accuracy and of aptness required to run the arguments for means-end rationality and for probabilism run closely parallel. I show the argument is robust under different theories of subjective actual value, including nonclassical treatments of indeterminacy in actual value; I show the argument may (but need not!) be generalized to objective theories of value. The upshot is that aptness domination arguments for decision theories should be added to the philosophical playbook