ABSTRACT
This chapter describes the notion of commensurability that can be unpacked in terms of the notion of ordinal preference: actions are commensurable if and only if, however heterogeneous the goods and evils on each side, rational agents can in principle say which course of action they prefer. It examines that, although some preferences may be unmotivated, many will not, since agents will often be able to defend their preferences by appealing to reasons. The chapter discusses various ways in which choices may be indeterminate in an ‘uninteresting’ way. It points out that in many familiar idealized pictures of rational choice, agents attempt to minimize costs and maximize benefits. The chapter considers a transcendental argument designed to support it, an argument which turned on the claim that choice between alternatives implies the ability to compare and balance them.
