4 ms·

You are going to die of thirst in the next few hours. There is one merchant selling bottled water. There is no price at which you say, "fuck that, I'll live wi

You are going to die of thirst in the next few hours. There is one merchant selling bottled water. There is no price at which you say, "fuck that, I'll live without it." You won't. You'll die. So you pay whatever they're asking, up to and including everything you have. If you had more, you would pay more. That's what I mean by infinite value.

dnautics 12y ago
Actually, there are prices, where I will say "fuck that, i'll live without it". Easy example (but I would probably hold out for less): Would you trade torturing person X for water? (assuming assurances that they would be otherwise unharmed if I died of thirst)
pdonis 12y ago
Or you'll try to bargain with the merchant, explaining that you're dying of thirst. Or you'll try to take the water by force, since the merchant is obviously being unreasonable. Or... In other words, your scenario does not just assume that you are dying of thirst. It also assumes that the merchant is evil, so evil that he will take everything you own in exchange for a single bottle of water when you are dying of thirst. Most humans are not like that. Why should you just happen to run across one that is at the precise moment when you are dying of thirst and he is the only merchant around? That's way too improbable to worry about.
- superuser2 12y ago
  > Or you'll try to bargain with the merchant, explaining that you're dying of thirst In which case, he'll move on and sell it to the next guy. > Or you'll try to take the water by force, since the merchant is obviously being unreasonable. Okay, maybe, if you aren't outmatched. > It also assumes that the merchant is evil, so evil that he will take everything you own in exchange for a single bottle of water when you are dying of thirst This sort of proves my point. People understand that this kind of behavior is wrong, so they don't do it. I was replying to someone saying it's puzzling that people consider this behavior wrong.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > In which case, he'll move on and sell it to the next guy. Exactly what sort of situation are you envisioning, where there are multiple people who want to buy water (but nobody but you is dying of thirst), yet only one merchant selling it? One can always make up improbable scenarios. > People understand that this kind of behavior is wrong, so they don't do it. That's one possible reason why people don't do it, but not the only one. There are game theoretic reasons why not doing it is adaptive. In any case, if your argument is that people think it's wrong to take all the assets of someone who is dying of thirst, in exchange for one bottle of water, then you've shifted your ground. Your original argument was that people must assign infinite value to necessities like water, because they will pay whatever it takes to get them. Now your argument is that charging whatever the person dying of thirst will pay is "wrong". This is a different argument, and I don't see what it has to do with your original claim. > I was replying to someone saying it's puzzling that people consider this behavior wrong. Huh? The grandparent of my first post in this subthread was questioning your assignment of "infinite value" to water (or anything, for that matter). Perhaps you're thinking of another subthread?

dnautics 12y ago

Actually, there are prices, where I will say "fuck that, i'll live without it". Easy example (but I would probably hold out for less): Would you trade torturing person X for water? (assuming assurances that they would be otherwise unharmed if I died of thirst)

pdonis 12y ago

Or you'll try to bargain with the merchant, explaining that you're dying of thirst. Or you'll try to take the water by force, since the merchant is obviously being unreasonable. Or... In other words, your scenario does not just assume that you are dying of thirst. It also assumes that the merchant is evil, so evil that he will take everything you own in exchange for a single bottle of water when you are dying of thirst. Most humans are not like that. Why should you just happen to run across one that is at the precise moment when you are dying of thirst and he is the only merchant around? That's way too improbable to worry about.

superuser2 12y ago
> Or you'll try to bargain with the merchant, explaining that you're dying of thirst In which case, he'll move on and sell it to the next guy. > Or you'll try to take the water by force, since the merchant is obviously being unreasonable. Okay, maybe, if you aren't outmatched. > It also assumes that the merchant is evil, so evil that he will take everything you own in exchange for a single bottle of water when you are dying of thirst This sort of proves my point. People understand that this kind of behavior is wrong, so they don't do it. I was replying to someone saying it's puzzling that people consider this behavior wrong.
- pdonis 12y ago
  > In which case, he'll move on and sell it to the next guy. Exactly what sort of situation are you envisioning, where there are multiple people who want to buy water (but nobody but you is dying of thirst), yet only one merchant selling it? One can always make up improbable scenarios. > People understand that this kind of behavior is wrong, so they don't do it. That's one possible reason why people don't do it, but not the only one. There are game theoretic reasons why not doing it is adaptive. In any case, if your argument is that people think it's wrong to take all the assets of someone who is dying of thirst, in exchange for one bottle of water, then you've shifted your ground. Your original argument was that people must assign infinite value to necessities like water, because they will pay whatever it takes to get them. Now your argument is that charging whatever the person dying of thirst will pay is "wrong". This is a different argument, and I don't see what it has to do with your original claim. > I was replying to someone saying it's puzzling that people consider this behavior wrong. Huh? The grandparent of my first post in this subthread was questioning your assignment of "infinite value" to water (or anything, for that matter). Perhaps you're thinking of another subthread?