2 ms·

Kavka's Toxin Puzzle

2 points by mindcrime 5y ago

kazinator 5y ago
The philosophical puzzle rather seems to be on the side of the billionaire. The billionaire promises to pay if the subject intends to drink the toxin. Therefore the eccentric billionaire is the one who must decide, at midnight, whether the subject holds the intention at that time, and thus whether to let the money go or not. Since the billionaire has made it clear that the money is not conditional on actually drinking the toxin (the money won't have to be returned if the drinking doesn't take place) he or she has thereby made it clear that it's not actually conditional on the intent. It's de facto unconditional. The billionaire has no way to evaluate the presence or absence of intent, and knows it, and is willing to believe that intent was there even if the subject didn't take the toxin, so as to let them have the money. Thus it is mostly the billionaire's problem in that sense. Now someone honest will interpret the offer as a test; the dilemma on the subject's side is just a matter of simple ethics: "Maybe the billionaire has other good/interesting things in store for me, if I drink the toxin to show that I made good on having the intent. If these next steps involve any more toxins, or anything dangerous, I can decline then, as a still honest person in the eyes of all involved." Someone not quite so honest, who is thinking about lying about their intent, will be thinking: "Come on, for real now; they are not really going to let me keep the money if I don't drink the toxin. I don't feel bad about taking the money from the idiot billionaire, but some thug is going to track me down and break my knee caps with a bat." In short, the subject knows that the only way to prove having had intent is to go through with it, regardless of any philosophical conundrums about whether one can internally have intent without the action. It's all about the perception of dishonesty or other repercussions. So it's fairly simple from their perspective.

2 points by mindcrime 5y ago

The philosophical puzzle rather seems to be on the side of the billionaire. The billionaire promises to pay if the subject intends to drink the toxin. Therefore the eccentric billionaire is the one who must decide, at midnight, whether the subject holds the intention at that time, and thus whether to let the money go or not. Since the billionaire has made it clear that the money is not conditional on actually drinking the toxin (the money won't have to be returned if the drinking doesn't take place) he or she has thereby made it clear that it's not actually conditional on the intent. It's de facto unconditional. The billionaire has no way to evaluate the presence or absence of intent, and knows it, and is willing to believe that intent was there even if the subject didn't take the toxin, so as to let them have the money. Thus it is mostly the billionaire's problem in that sense. Now someone honest will interpret the offer as a test; the dilemma on the subject's side is just a matter of simple ethics: "Maybe the billionaire has other good/interesting things in store for me, if I drink the toxin to show that I made good on having the intent. If these next steps involve any more toxins, or anything dangerous, I can decline then, as a still honest person in the eyes of all involved." Someone not quite so honest, who is thinking about lying about their intent, will be thinking: "Come on, for real now; they are not really going to let me keep the money if I don't drink the toxin. I don't feel bad about taking the money from the idiot billionaire, but some thug is going to track me down and break my knee caps with a bat." In short, the subject knows that the only way to prove having had intent is to go through with it, regardless of any philosophical conundrums about whether one can internally have intent without the action. It's all about the perception of dishonesty or other repercussions. So it's fairly simple from their perspective.