Thought experiment - Would you take the money?

[General Zod]

As I said previously, if that's the main concern, there are much more direct methods of fulfilling those obligations than giving money to the chooser in particular.

I view this as the most direct method of fufilling these obligations. The chooser is now one step further away from needing charity and is in a better position to give charity and contribute to society in general. The best form of charity is to prevent people from falling into poverty to begin with and allow them access to the resources needed to better their lot. This is not my main concern though, it's more about making the world more unpleasant than it needs to be.

Wee, more red herrings. Since we don't know the financial status of either person in the OP, we have no reason to assume that accepting or refusing the $10 will adversely affect their financial status and is independent of the criteria.

[Big Phil]

How are you getting "screwed" by receiving free money? The splitter has no obligation to you at all, unless the two of you had made a prior deal about how the splitting should take place.

So if your only choices involve getting either $50 or $0, it seems to me the only way you can be "screwed" is if you get the lesser of the two amounts, and that's your own damn fault.

Here's another scenario. You and a co-worker each receive identical performance reviews, and you both currently make exactly the same salary. You are given a 3% raise; your co-worker receives a 30% raise. Keep in mind, you both did exactly the same job and performed equally well. In this scenario, would you say you're getting screwed or not? You've still gotten a raise, it's just not as much of a raise as the other guy.

This hypothetical scenario in this thread is very similar - neither of you deserves the money any more or less than the other. The decider benefits if he accepts $50, while the splitter benefits nine times more by getting $450. That hardly seems fair to me.

Red herring. In the OP nobody actually has to "work" for their money, and neither the splitter nor the receiver know each other. It also isn't comparable since your co-worker doesn't decide who receives what, unlike the OP.

Of course it's a red herring. It illustrates the decision-making process, however, as I showed in the second paragraph. The decision isn't quite as simple as the decider making $50 in isolation - the Divider generally considers how the Splitter benefits in relation to the Divider, and if I were the Divider and didn't think the offer was fair, I'd go back to status quo - nobody benefits. No harm, no foul at that point.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course it's a red herring. It illustrates the decision-making process, however, as I showed in the second paragraph. The decision isn't quite as simple as the decider making $50 in isolation - the Divider generally considers how the Splitter benefits in relation to the Divider, and if I were the Divider and didn't think the offer was fair, I'd go back to status quo - nobody benefits. No harm, no foul at that point.

If it is a red herring, then it is by definition worthless as an argument. The descision making process in the case of a raise for workers is irrelevant because the scenario is not analogous.

[Kuroneko]

I view this as the most direct method of fufilling these obligations. The chooser is now one step further away from needing charity and is in a better position to give charity and contribute to society in general. The best form of charity is to prevent people from falling into poverty to begin with and allow them access to the resources needed to better their lot. This is not my main concern though, it's more about making the world more unpleasant than it needs to be.

You hold that you would rather have no one getting anything rather than everyone getting something positive (if unequally), and at the same time you claim that pursuing this action would benefit society? You're absolutely right in that everyone sharing equally and willingly would be the ideal Utopian situation, but to hold that no one receiving anything at all as the next best thing seems to be rather perverse.

[General Zod]

Of course it's a red herring. It illustrates the decision-making process, however, as I showed in the second paragraph. The decision isn't quite as simple as the decider making $50 in isolation - the Divider generally considers how the Splitter benefits in relation to the Divider, and if I were the Divider and didn't think the offer was fair, I'd go back to status quo - nobody benefits. No harm, no foul at that point.

I suppose at this point the only real problem is what criteria should be used to determine whether or not something is "fair". Equitibility or entitlement.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course it's a red herring. It illustrates the decision-making process, however, as I showed in the second paragraph. The decision isn't quite as simple as the decider making $50 in isolation - the Divider generally considers how the Splitter benefits in relation to the Divider, and if I were the Divider and didn't think the offer was fair, I'd go back to status quo - nobody benefits. No harm, no foul at that point.

If it is a red herring, then it is by definition worthless as an argument. The descision making process in the case of a raise for workers is irrelevant because the scenario is not analogous.

Incidentally, it is a foul to curtail the posetive utility the splitting would provide for both parties.

[Klatoo]

You hold that you would rather have no one getting anything rather than everyone getting something positive (if unequally), and at the same time you claim that pursuing this action would benefit society? You're absolutely right in that everyone sharing equally and willing would be the ideal Utopian situation, but to hold that no one receiving anything at all as the next best thing seems to be rather perverse.

The money didn't disappear, the original offerer still has it. The original offerer has demonstrated a willingness to be charitable and may offer the same deal to someone else. I have prevented an anti-social person from gaining more power and left the door open for more sociable people to possibly benefit. I would rather the original owner have it than the splitter.

[Lord Zentei]

You hold that you would rather have no one getting anything rather than everyone getting something positive (if unequally), and at the same time you claim that pursuing this action would benefit society? You're absolutely right in that everyone sharing equally and willing would be the ideal Utopian situation, but to hold that no one receiving anything at all as the next best thing seems to be rather perverse.

The money didn't disappear, the original offerer still has it. The original offerer has demonstrated a willingness to be charitable and may offer the same deal to someone else. I have prevented an anti-social person from gaining more power and left the door open for more sociable people to possibly benefit. I would rather the original owner have it than the splitter.

That is going beyond the specifications of the scenario. There is no justification to assume that he would be willing to repeat the experiment, nor that he would be a better custodian than the splitter, since you don't know what the latter intends with the money.

[Klatoo]

There is no justification to assume that he would be willing to repeat the experiment, nor that he would be a better custodian than the splitter, since you don't know what the latter intends with the money.

I can't really know what anyone but myself will do with the money. I can only look at the past actions of the players and roll the dice. I know the original owner on one occasion was willing to hand out money to 2 people for essentially doing nothing. I know the splitter on one occasion was interested in maximizing their own profit with little concern for the equitability of the situation. Having only this information I would judge that the original owner is the best solution. I may turn out to be wrong, but I have to make a decision with what I have.

[RedImperator]

If both of us were to receive a trivial amount of money, like he'd get $.90 and I'd get a dime, I'd take it. I mean, it's a dollar. Who gives a shit?

If both of us were to receive a non-trivial amount of money, like I'd get $100 and he'd get $900, I'd take it. A hundred bucks is a hundred bucks.

But if I were to wind up with a trivial amount of money while he receives a non-trivial amount of money, such as I get $10 while he gets $90, then I refuse the deal. Why? Because being spiteful, in that situation, would bring me more pleasure than anything I could have bought with the ten dollars.

The trick to this is to not even try to justify it ethically.

[Lord Zentei]

I can't really know what anyone but myself will do with the money. I can only look at the past actions of the players and roll the dice. I know the original owner on one occasion was willing to hand out money to 2 people for essentially doing nothing. I know the splitter on one occasion was interested in maximizing their own profit with little concern for the equitability of the situation. Having only this information I would judge that the original owner is the best solution. I may turn out to be wrong, but I have to make a decision with what I have.

A fair point, though one might cynically point out that it is still a selfish argument; you are basically punishing the splitter for not giving you more money, since the inequity affects you personally. If the splitter were to divide the money between himself and another, that would be a different matter.

Incidentally, would you still refuse the deal if the value represented by the money were in fact lost by the act of refusal?

[Kuroneko]

[I can't really know what anyone but myself will do with the money. I can only look at the past actions of the players and roll the dice. ...

Good point; we both seem to have generalized the actual scenario into different directions--you as a philanthropist giving the money and myself as a general question about resources. The original version has this in the context of an experiment; the experiment would likely be doing this out of a sense of charity.

[Klatoo]

Incidentally, would you still refuse the deal if the value represented by the money were in fact lost by the act of refusal?

That's a tough one, it would depend. I would be inclined to accept just so that it's not lost, like if the offerer had an open furnace there and stated the money would either go to us or to the furnace. It would depend on the amount, I'd burn $10 to make a point not so with $10,000.

It also changes what I know about the offerer, implying to me that they may not be the ideal choice. I would have to make a guess as to how selfish the splitter was and weight it against the value of the money and how much power the splitter would gain from their cut. Sometimes it's better to destroy a thing than to let it fall into irresponsible hands (think about a nuclear weapon and Charles Manson for an extreme example).

[Invictus ChiKen]

*yonk* Thanks for the cash!

[Lord Zentei]

Incidentally, would you still refuse the deal if the value represented by the money were in fact lost by the act of refusal?

That's a tough one, it would depend. I would be inclined to accept just so that it's not lost, like if the offerer had an open furnace there and stated the money would either go to us or to the furnace. It would depend on the amount, I'd burn $10 to make a point not so with $10,000.

It also changes what I know about the offerer, implying to me that they may not be the ideal choice. I would have to make a guess as to how selfish the splitter was and weight it against the value of the money and how much power the splitter would gain from their cut. Sometimes it's better to destroy a thing than to let it fall into irresponsible hands (think about a nuclear weapon and Charles Manson for an extreme example).

Good points.

However: in order to reduce the total utility present in a society, he would have to threaten to burn goods, not money, since burning money does not reduce the total utility present in a society any more than printing it does. It represents value, it isn't actually value in and of itself.

[Nova Andromeda]

-I have to agree that those who accept an uneven split are both empowering and encouraging bad behavior. A person who makes an uneven split has demonstrated unethical behavior by doing so. Two people are required to make the deal, they are equally important, and they've made the same investment in the deal (only a small bit of time). If one then accepts that neither party is entitled to advantage, it follows that a split favoring the splitter is unfair. Therefore, by accepting an unfair split the decider is dispropotionately empowering an unethical person. Furthermore, an unethical person that get away with such an action now had firm evidence that it can also work in the furture. They are thus further encouraged to continue their bad behavior.
-This assumes all things are equal between the splitter and decider and that the splitter isn't being forced to split things one way or another. For instance, I wouldn't be against accepting a 1:9 split in someone else's favor if the beneficiary wasn't really making the decision on how to split the cash. Other senarios can also alter the decision. If the payout is unfair, but the decider desparately needs the cash then the decider may have little real choice in the matter.

[General Zod]

-I have to agree that those who accept an uneven split are both empowering and encouraging bad behavior. A person who makes an uneven split has demonstrated unethical behavior by doing so. Two people are required to make the deal, they are equally important, and they've made the same investment in the deal (only a small bit of time). If one then accepts that neither party is entitled to advantage, it follows that a split favoring the splitter is unfair. Therefore, by accepting an unfair split the decider is dispropotionately empowering an unethical person. Furthermore, an unethical person that get away with such an action now had firm evidence that it can also work in the furture. They are thus further encouraged to continue their bad behavior.
-This assumes all things are equal between the splitter and decider and that the splitter isn't being forced to split things one way or another. For instance, I wouldn't be against accepting a 1:9 split in someone else's favor if the beneficiary wasn't really making the decision on how to split the cash. Other senarios can also alter the decision. If the payout is unfair, but the decider desparately needs the cash then the decider may have little real choice in the matter.

Since none of that information was present in the OP, we have no choice but to assume that all things are equal between the splitter and the decider.

[Wyrm]

Rationality says to accept the deal and keep the money.

The selfish, petulant child in you says to reject it and screw over the splitter that gave you the unfair deal.

The difference is that your gut reaction evolved to solve a different problem than the scenario actually presented. AMX unconsiously hit upon the key:

Um, guys - there is a problem with "take the money, no matter how unfair the split":
Reinforcement.

In other words, he's implicitly assuming that the game is a continued one; that you would repeatedly get the same kind of offer from the same person. Back on the savaana, you usually would meet the same people again and again with the same kind of deals, and this is the environment your gut reactions will evolve to deal with. In this situation, your best strategy would be to reject such "unfair" offers, because although you might suffer, your partner would also suffer and remember that suffering for the next round, and offer you a more "fair" deal. You therefore maximize your payoff during the course of the continuing game when you punish others for selfishness.

The problem is that this does not hold when the deal is one-time-only, as we can presume this deal is. Here, it's a choice between a total payoff of $10 and $0 for the entire game. The choice is clear here: take the money, no matter how "unfair" the split. Your payoff is maximized during the course of the game.

[Lord Zentei]

-I have to agree that those who accept an uneven split are both empowering and encouraging bad behavior. A person who makes an uneven split has demonstrated unethical behavior by doing so. Two people are required to make the deal, they are equally important, and they've made the same investment in the deal (only a small bit of time).

That is of questionable relevance if the investment of both parties is neglible compared with the reward. This is meant to represent a windfall, after all.

[Klatoo]

A fair point, though one might cynically point out that it is still a selfish argument; you are basically punishing the splitter for not giving you more money, since the inequity affects you personally.

Good point, but I don't claim to not be selfish. I wish the 'guy before me' had done this so that the splitter would be more inclined to offer a more equitable split. I would rather the 'guy before me' had done it, but he didn't. Just because the 'guy before me' failed in his duty to see that I am treated fairly doesn't excuse me from my duty to see that the 'guy after me' is treated fairly. I give up this one thing to pay for all the 'guys before me' who told 'the bastards' NO at cost to themselves. They have provided me with a more bastard free environment which will be lost if I don't do the same. I don't want to live in a bastard rich environment. Such an inconvenient duty.

[Lord Zentei]

A fair point, though one might cynically point out that it is still a selfish argument; you are basically punishing the splitter for not giving you more money, since the inequity affects you personally.

Good point, but I don't claim to not be selfish. I wish the 'guy before me' had done this so that the splitter would be more inclined to offer a more equitable split. I would rather the 'guy before me' had done it, but he didn't. Just because the 'guy before me' failed in his duty to see that I am treated fairly doesn't excuse me from my duty to see that the 'guy after me' is treated fairly. I give up this one thing to pay for all the 'guys before me' who told 'the bastards' NO at cost to themselves. They have provided me with a more bastard free environment which will be lost if I don't do the same.

That presupposes that there are other players, rather than this being a "one shot", of course.

I don't want to live in a bastard rich environment. Such an inconvenient duty.

You seem to place quite the level of import on monetary equity.

Question: if the assets of the players are klnown to you, you would presumably give the richer player a trivial amount, as long as the difference in rewards is less than the difference in already owned assets? Unless that would affect future splits negatively?

[Nova Andromeda]

-I have to agree that those who accept an uneven split are both empowering and encouraging bad behavior. A person who makes an uneven split has demonstrated unethical behavior by doing so. Two people are required to make the deal, they are equally important, and they've made the same investment in the deal (only a small bit of time).

That is of questionable relevance if the investment of both parties is neglible compared with the reward. This is meant to represent a windfall, after all.

-Oh really? What is your reasoning for this position? I'm sure you've noted that the cooperation of both parties is absolutely necessary for this to work. In other words, each party is entirely reliant on the other for the "windfall."

[Lord Zentei]

-I have to agree that those who accept an uneven split are both empowering and encouraging bad behavior. A person who makes an uneven split has demonstrated unethical behavior by doing so. Two people are required to make the deal, they are equally important, and they've made the same investment in the deal (only a small bit of time).

That is of questionable relevance if the investment of both parties is neglible compared with the reward. This is meant to represent a windfall, after all.

-Oh really? What is your reasoning for this position? I'm sure you've noted that the cooperation of both parties is absolutely necessary for this to work. In other words, each party is entirely reliant on the other for the "windfall."

You said it yourself: they only invest a very small amount of their time to the task. The reward of both is far greater than the value of their time. If that is not the case, however, then you have a point.

In any case, the splitter gains the additional responsibility of making a descision the other does not make. Their positions are not equal. There are numerous instances in society of cooperation being essential for success, but equity not being neccesarily the accepted outcome.

[Klatoo]

That presupposes that there are other players, rather than this being a "one shot", of course.

Conceded. In total isolation my argument holds no water.

We would have to throw out any resource based arguments as well since it is all isolated from the rest of the world. I'm not sure if there are any ethical/unethical choices without the idea of a continuing outside world in this scenario.

You seem to place quite the level of import on monetary equity.

It's not the money, it's what their behaviour implies to me. That they are generally unconcerned with how they treat people.

Question: if the assets of the players are klnown to you, you would presumably give the richer player a trivial amount, as long as the difference in rewards is less than the difference in already owned assets? Unless that would affect future splits negatively?

I would be inclined to do a 50/50 split. If any amount I could give to the more wealthy person would be trivial compared to their wealth I would consider favoring the less wealthy one. Especially if it would make a big difference in their lives while the wealthy one would barely notice the benefit. But I think we are going off topic and more into "How does Klatoo's crazy mind work?" (A fascinating glimpse into the mouth of madness )

[Nova Andromeda]

That is of questionable relevance if the investment of both parties is neglible compared with the reward. This is meant to represent a windfall, after all.

-Oh really? What is your reasoning for this position? I'm sure you've noted that the cooperation of both parties is absolutely necessary for this to work. In other words, each party is entirely reliant on the other for the "windfall."

You said it yourself: they only invest a very small amount of their time to the task. The reward of both is far greater than the value of their time. If that is not the case, however, then you have a point.

In any case, the splitter gains the additional responsibility of making a descision the other does not make. Their positions are not equal. There are numerous instances in society of cooperation being essential for success, but equity not being neccesarily the accepted outcome.

-How is the decision made by the splitter significantly harder to make than the decision made by the decider? Assumming there are differences in difficulty between deciding what is a fair split and whether to accept a proposed split neither is a significant barrier to receiving the windfall. Failure to cooperate is the major barrier that must be overcome. In this scenario each party contributes equally to cooperation.
-If there is no reason to weight the division of a resource, it is unethical to divide it unevenly. The reason for this is that a party trying to take more than their "fair share" of said resource is unreasonably favoring itself more than the other parties. This alone is sufficient reason to oppose such an action.
-Saying I should go with what is or is not accepted by society is just an appeal to popularity.