distinguishing extortion/blackmail from other forms of trade.
The decision-theoretic distinction seems pretty clear: if other people expect you to pay extorters then you are worse off, if other people expect you to pay trading partners you are better off. You can take that as the definition if you like, though there might be better definitions. (It incidentally clarifies when something nominally labeled “trade” can morally be extortion).
Yes, defining counterfactuals is subtle. And of course these aren’t natural kinds, like most things it’s a bit blurry. But does the discussion in this post really depend on those subtleties?
you can frame “forced to carry an umbrella” as the threat of being dampened if it rains, and apply the same decision framework.
Carrying an umbrella doesn’t seem similar in relevant ways to responding to a threat.
The distinction doesn’t seem clear to me at all—in no case does anyone pay if they don’t expect to be better off than if they didn’t pay.
“pay me $5 or I won’t give you this hamburger”. “pay me $60 or I’ll put a lock on your storage unit so you can’t get in”. “if you don’t tip everyday, your latte might be made with a little less care”. Which are these?
IMO, whether to carry an umbrella is exactly the same learning and decision as learning what happens when you pay or don’t for something.
The interesting feature of a threat is that it occurs because the person making the threat expects you to change your behavior in response to the threat, but whether it rains is independent of whether you would respond to rain with an umbrella.
The decision-theoretic distinction seems pretty clear: if other people expect you to pay extorters then you are worse off, if other people expect you to pay trading partners you are better off. You can take that as the definition if you like, though there might be better definitions. (It incidentally clarifies when something nominally labeled “trade” can morally be extortion).
Yes, defining counterfactuals is subtle. And of course these aren’t natural kinds, like most things it’s a bit blurry. But does the discussion in this post really depend on those subtleties?
Carrying an umbrella doesn’t seem similar in relevant ways to responding to a threat.
The distinction doesn’t seem clear to me at all—in no case does anyone pay if they don’t expect to be better off than if they didn’t pay.
“pay me $5 or I won’t give you this hamburger”. “pay me $60 or I’ll put a lock on your storage unit so you can’t get in”. “if you don’t tip everyday, your latte might be made with a little less care”. Which are these?
IMO, whether to carry an umbrella is exactly the same learning and decision as learning what happens when you pay or don’t for something.
The interesting feature of a threat is that it occurs because the person making the threat expects you to change your behavior in response to the threat, but whether it rains is independent of whether you would respond to rain with an umbrella.