I defend counterfactual decision theory, which says that you should evaluate an action in terms of which outcomes would likely obtain were you to perform it. Counterfactual decision theory has traditionally been subsumed under causal decision theory as a particular formulation of the latter. This is a mistake. Counterfactual decision theory is importantly different from, and superior to, causal decision theory, properly so called. Causation and counterfactuals come apart in three kinds of cases. In cases of overdetermination, an action can cause a good outcome without the latter counterfactually depending on the former. In cases of constitution, an action can constitute a good outcome rather than causing it. And in cases of determinism, either the laws or the past counterfactually depend on your action, even though your action cannot cause the laws or the past to be different. In each of these cases, it is counterfactual decision theory which gives the right verdict, and for the right reasons.

中文翻译：

---

反事实决策理论

我捍卫反事实决策理论，它说你应该根据你执行它可能获得的结果来评估一个行动。反事实决策理论传统上被归入因果决策理论，作为后者的特定表述。这是个错误。反事实决策理论与因果决策理论有着重要的区别，并且优于因果决策理论。因果关系和反事实在三种情况下是分开的。在过度决定的情况下，一个行动可以导致一个好的结果，而后者不会反事实地依赖于前者。在宪法的情况下，一个行动可以构成一个好的结果而不是导致它。在决定论的情况下，法律或过去反事实地取决于你的行为，即使您的行为不会导致法律或过去有所不同。在每一种情况下，反事实决策理论都给出了正确的结论，并且给出了正确的理由。