In this article we explore an argumentative pattern that provides a normative justification for expected utility functions grounded on empirical evidence, showing how it worked in three different episodes of their development. The argument claims that we should prudentially maximize our expected utility since this is the criterion effectively applied by those who are considered wisest in making risky choices (be it gamblers or businessmen). Yet, to justify the adoption of this rule, it should be proven that this is empirically true: i.e. that a given function allows us to predict the choices of that particular class of agents. We show how expected utility functions were introduced and contested in accordance with this pattern in the 18th century and how it recurred in the 1950s when Allais made his case against the neo-Bernoullians.
Allais, M. (1953[1949]) La gestion des houillères nationalisées et la théorie économique, 2nd edn. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
2.
Allais, M. (1957) `Method of Appraising Economic Prospects of Mining Exploration over Large Territories: Algerian Sahara Case Study' , Management Science4(3): 285-347.
3.
Allais, M. (1979a[1952]) `The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School', in M. Allais and O. Hagen (eds) Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 27-145.
4.
Allais, M. (1979b) `The So-called Allais Paradox and Rational Decision under Uncertainty', in M. Allais and O. Hagen (eds) Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 437-681.
5.
Allais, M. and Hagen, O., eds (1979) Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel.
6.
Bernoulli, D. (1954[1738]) `Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk' , trans. L. Sommer, Econometrica22: 22-36.
7.
Bernoulli, D. (1982[1738]) `Specimen Theoriae Novae de Mensura Sortis' , in L. P. Bouckaert and B. L. van der Waerden (eds) Die Werke von Daniel Bernoulli, vol. 2. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, pp. 223-35.
8.
Bernoulli, J. (1975) Die Werke von Jakob Bernoulli, vol. 3, ed. B. L. van der Waerden.Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
9.
Buffon, G. L. L. de (1977[1777]) Essai d'arithmétique morale, in Un autre Buffon. Paris: Hermann .
10.
Cnrs (1953) Colloque `Econométrie', Paris 12-17 mai 1952. Paris: CNRS .
11.
Condorcet, J. A. N. C. de (1986a[1785]) `"Discours préliminaire" de l'Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix', in Sur les élections et autres textes , ed. O. de Bernon.Paris: Fayard, pp. 1-178.
12.
Condorcet, J. A. N. C. de (1986b[1787]) Eléments de calcul des probabilités et son application aux jeux de hasard, à la loterie, et aux jugements des hommes, in Sur les élections et autres textes, ed. O. de Bernon.Paris: Fayard, pp. 485-646.
13.
Condorcet, J.A.N.C. de (1994a[1781]) `Première lettre au comte Pietro Verri', in Arithmétique politique - textes rares ou inédits (1767-1789), ed. B. Bru and P. Crepel.Paris: INED, pp. 69-72.
14.
Condorcet, J.A.N.C. de(1994b[1784]) `Assurances (maritimes)', in Arithmétique politique - textes rares ou inédits (1767-1789), ed. B. Bru and P. Crepel.Paris: INED, pp. 485-94.
15.
Condorcet, J.A.N.C. de. (1994c[c.1785]) `Notes sur la Thèse de Nicolas Bernoulli', in Arithmétique politique - textes rares ou inédits (1767-1789), ed. B. Bru and P. Crepel.Paris: INED, pp. 574-88.
16.
Condorcet, J.A.N.C. de (1994d) Arithmétique politique - textes rares ou inédits (1767-1789), ed. B. Bru and P. Crepel.Paris: INED, pp. 69-72.
17.
Coumet, E. (1972) `La théorie du hasard est-elle née par hasard?' , Annales: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations25: 574-98.
18.
Cramer, G. (1975[1728]) `Letters to Nicolas Bernoulli' , in J. Bernoulli , Die Werke von Jakob Bernoulli, vol. 3, ed. B. L. van der Waerden.Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, pp. 560-3.
19.
D'Alembert, J. Le R. (1768) `Sur l'analyse des jeux', in Opuscules mathématiques , vol. IV. Paris: David, pp. 80-92.
20.
Ellsberg, D. (1961) `Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms' , Quarterly Journal of Economics75: 643-69.
21.
Franklin, J. (2001) The Science of Conjecture. Evidence and Probability before Pascal. Baltimore , MD: Johns Hopkins University Press .
22.
Friedman, M. (1953) `The Methodology of Positive Economics', in Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3-43.
23.
Friedman, M. and Savage, L.J. (1952) `The Expected-Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility' , Journal of Political Economy60(6): 463-74.
24.
Guala, F. (2000) `The Logic of Normative Falsification: Rationality and Experiments in Decision Theory' , Journal of Economic Methodology7(1): 59-93.
25.
Hervier, A. (1997) `Juste prix et valeur chez Turgot' , Economie et Sociétés, série P. E., 25(1): 71-108.
26.
Jallais, S. and Pradier, P.-C. (2005) `The Allais Paradox and its Immediate Consequences for Expected Utility Theory', in P. Fontaine and R. Leonard (eds) The Experiment in the History of Economics. London: Routledge, pp. 25-49.
27.
Jorland, G. (1987) `The Saint Petersburg Paradox 1713-1937', in L. Krüger et al. (eds) The Probabilistic Revolution, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 157-90.
28.
Marschak, J. (1951) `Why "Should" Statisticians and Businessmen Maximize Moral Expectation?' , Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 493-506.
29.
Mongin, P. (2006) `Value Judgments and Value Neutrality in Economics' , Economica73: 257-86.
30.
Pradier, P.-C. (1996) `Daniel Bernoulli et l'utilité marginale: statut de l'hypothèse' , paper presented at the colloque `L'utilitarisme: analyse et histoire', Université Lille I, 25-6janvier.
31.
Samuelson, P.A. (1966[1965]) `1965 Postscript', ed. J. E. Stiglitz , The Collected Scientific Papers of P. A. Samuelson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 124-6.
32.
Savage, L.J. (1972) The Foundations of Statistics, 2nd edn. New York: Dover Publications .
33.
Schlee, E. (1992) `Marshall, Jevons, and the Development of the Expected Utility Hypothesis' , History of Political Economy24(3): 729-44.
34.
Starmer, C. (2005) `Normative Notions in Descriptive Dialogues' , Journal of Economic Methodology12(2): 277-89.
35.
Teira, D. (2006) `On the Normative Dimension of the St. Petersburg Paradox' , Studies in History and Philosophy of Science37: 210-23.
36.
Vega, L. (1998) `Aristotle's Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation' , Argumentation12: 95-113.
37.
Weill, F. (1961) `La correspondance Buffon-Cramer' , Revue d'histoire des sciences14(2): 97-136.
