3 ms·
By robbing strangers in the dark you can lose your life! I don't think you understand the argument here. I sincerely think you are confusing strongly the way yo
by jessedhillon 13y ago
By robbing strangers in the dark you can lose your life! I don't think you understand the argument here. I sincerely think you are confusing strongly the way you think the world should work with what decision-makers can do under the limits of bounded rationality. Because something is to be gained is almost the only justification for everything that happens.
If you want to figure out a world where people aren't self-interested and risk-averse, maybe a church would be a better place for you to have that discussion.
- danbruc 13y agoIf people are purely selfish, then everything is lost anyway - selfishness is not able to sustain a human society. And while people have to be selfish to some degree to sustain their lives, I see no reasons why they can not act altruistically after they secured basic human needs like food and shelter. And I agree that most if not all decisions are based or should be based on the expected gain, but the question is then of course how you define or measure that gain. There may actually be a real gain for a country if you spy on other countries, but I argue that this is the wrong standard for gain in that situation, a selfish definition of gain. I would strongly prefer to consider the gain or loss for the whole world when evaluating decisions like whether or not to spy on other countries.
- andersonvom 13y agoEverything you do has pros and cons. By spying on other countries, you may create enemies and eventually lose many lives in a war, for instance. The point seemed to be: "just because it has a pro, doesn't mean I should do it". I could use the same logic to state that I can only gain by spying on my friends as well. Does that mean I should? Does that mean it has no downsides?