In most of these cases we can distinguish further: what is rational is to act in a certain way and to have a certain reputation. This has the benefit of being more airtight—one can argue for a logical relationship between disposition and action. (In Newcomb, the existence of an omniscient agent makes them all equivalent, but weird assumptions lead to weird conclusions.)
In most of these cases we can distinguish further: what is rational is to act in a certain way and to have a certain reputation. This has the benefit of being more airtight—one can argue for a logical relationship between disposition and action. (In Newcomb, the existence of an omniscient agent makes them all equivalent, but weird assumptions lead to weird conclusions.)