I’m afraid I’m more of a hardline consequentialist like EY. I often reach the same conclusions as deontologists, but not by following deontological lines of reasoning. Such results emerge from the overlapping consensus reached by multiple consequentialists coordinating with each other which trying to optimize the end results for themselves. Eg. There’s a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he’ll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division, etc.
There’s a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he’ll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division
Heh. Clearly the first person is irrational—he should hurry to precommit to stab the second person unless he gets the whole pie X-D
No he isn’t, because the judge will stab anyone who stabs someone without legitimate grievance, and the mob will back the judge.
(Of course, all this is just metaphorical. What he really wants is to share the pie equally. He’s negotiating with others to optimize for that outcome.)
I’m afraid I’m more of a hardline consequentialist like EY. I often reach the same conclusions as deontologists, but not by following deontological lines of reasoning. Such results emerge from the overlapping consensus reached by multiple consequentialists coordinating with each other which trying to optimize the end results for themselves. Eg. There’s a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he’ll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division, etc.
Heh. Clearly the first person is irrational—he should hurry to precommit to stab the second person unless he gets the whole pie X-D
No he isn’t, because the judge will stab anyone who stabs someone without legitimate grievance, and the mob will back the judge.
(Of course, all this is just metaphorical. What he really wants is to share the pie equally. He’s negotiating with others to optimize for that outcome.)
That bit seems to be missing from the original formulation of the problem :-)
But the rational response still seems to be to promise bread and circuses to the mob in exchange for the exclusive access to the pie.
Why is that?
The mob remains stubbornly uninterested. Its bloodymindedness to punish offenders is stronger than its love for pie.
He wants to share the pie equally because he is a good person.