• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.89-114
• /
• 2009

We have many causal beliefs, and they play an important role in our decision making. Unlike evidential decision theory, causal decision theory claims that an account of rational choice must use causal beliefs to identify the considerations that make a choice rational. I claim that evidential decision theory is refuted by the original Newcomb's problem but not by the medical Newcomb problem. The latter is taken to be the best example to point out the weakness of evidential decision theory. However, by the explicit statement about causal relations, I argue that the medical Newcomb problem loses its strength in refuting evidential decision theory. With this argument, this paper clarifies the difference between evidential decision theory and causal decision theory.