The disanalogy here is that you have a long term social relationship with Bob that you don’t have with Omega, and the $100 are an investment into that relationship.
Also, there is the possibility of future scenarios arising in which Bob could choose to take comparable actions, and we want to encourage him in doing so. I agree that the cases are not exactly analogous.
The outcomes don’t seem to be tied together as they were in the original problem; is it true that if had he won, he would only then have given you the money if, had he not won, you would have given him the $100 back? That isn’t clear.
Considering the ticket was worth $5,000 when he bought it, sure.
Did you give the same answer to Omega? The cases are exactly analogous. (Or do you argue that they are not?)
The disanalogy here is that you have a long term social relationship with Bob that you don’t have with Omega, and the $100 are an investment into that relationship.
Also, there is the possibility of future scenarios arising in which Bob could choose to take comparable actions, and we want to encourage him in doing so. I agree that the cases are not exactly analogous.
The outcomes don’t seem to be tied together as they were in the original problem; is it true that if had he won, he would only then have given you the money if, had he not won, you would have given him the $100 back? That isn’t clear.