3 ms·
It's not a problem of "doing more" or "doing less". It's that, based on the available choices the actor has ("aid"/"don't aid"/"aid conditionally"), the actor p
by mercurial 11y ago
It's not a problem of "doing more" or "doing less". It's that, based on the available choices the actor has ("aid"/"don't aid"/"aid conditionally"), the actor picks the outcome which disproportionately favours him, while the other actor has a limited range of strategy available.
If your house is burning and the fire brigade is too busy to help, and your neighbour Bob comes with a fire extinguisher and a smile on his face, and proposes to give you the fire extinguisher in exchange for your new car, I sure hope there won't be any hard feelings next time Bob drives past your house.
- grinnbearit 11y agoBut would you rather him not offer to trade? You could say no, how are you in a worse position after he makes an offer? Why would you rather he didn't?
- mercurial 11y agoOf course you can say no. It still means Bob is an asshole. Bob, unlike you, has many more options. He deliberately chooses to take advantage of your lack of options, even though behaving like a normal, decent human being and helping you for free by simply giving you the goddamn extinguisher would entail no great cost to him. People like Bob are not out there to help others. They're out there to win.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoYou've just described the business model of a Roman character called Crassus. He invented the fire brigade. He also invented a fire brigade protection racket: if your house was burning he'd offer to buy it at a knock-down once-in-a-lifetime price before putting the fire out. It was a solution of sorts. But maybe not the best of all possible solutions.