“Win-win thinking is fundamentally more Utilitarian than competitive zero-sum thinking.”
Well, no—that’s my main comment on your post. Any given Utilitarian priority (the aggregation of individual utility that you optimize) is NOT win-win. It’s win-on-average, which is still a loss for some.
Do you believe in the existence of win-win? If so, why wouldn’t they tend to behave as I am suggesting? Also if you believe win-wins exist and think they do not behave this way, then how do you understand a win-win?
I only think the very simplest of examples are fully win-win. Almost all of the real world consists of so many dimensions and players that it’s more win-kinda-win-win-too-much-feels-like-losing-but-maybe-is-technically-a-win-lose-big-win-slightly-etc-for-thousands-of-terms-in-the-equation.
Also, a whole lot matters whether it’s a win or a loss, what you’re comparing it to. Many things are a slight win compared to the worse outcomes (for the person in question) and a loss compared to perfect, but unlikely, outcomes.
I do totally believe that many negotiations are more successful if you can convince the loser that they’re winning. And a fair number of actual cooperative situations where all participants benefit and know it. Just not that they’re automatic nor that they’re the important ones for an ethical system to analyze.
So yes, win-win can happen, but that’s boring—there’s nobody arguing against that. It’s the win-lose and win-win-less-than-I-wanted cases which are actually interesting.
Well, no—that’s my main comment on your post. Any given Utilitarian priority (the aggregation of individual utility that you optimize) is NOT win-win. It’s win-on-average, which is still a loss for some.
Do you believe in the existence of win-win? If so, why wouldn’t they tend to behave as I am suggesting? Also if you believe win-wins exist and think they do not behave this way, then how do you understand a win-win?
I only think the very simplest of examples are fully win-win. Almost all of the real world consists of so many dimensions and players that it’s more win-kinda-win-win-too-much-feels-like-losing-but-maybe-is-technically-a-win-lose-big-win-slightly-etc-for-thousands-of-terms-in-the-equation.
Also, a whole lot matters whether it’s a win or a loss, what you’re comparing it to. Many things are a slight win compared to the worse outcomes (for the person in question) and a loss compared to perfect, but unlikely, outcomes.
I do totally believe that many negotiations are more successful if you can convince the loser that they’re winning. And a fair number of actual cooperative situations where all participants benefit and know it. Just not that they’re automatic nor that they’re the important ones for an ethical system to analyze.
So yes, win-win can happen, but that’s boring—there’s nobody arguing against that. It’s the win-lose and win-win-less-than-I-wanted cases which are actually interesting.