Thought experiment - Would you take the money?

[Lord Zentei]

-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.

Not really, since the splitter has to consider the possibility of multiple ways of splitting the money, while the other has only to consider one. Trivial diference, certainly, but then the descider has only a trivial job also.

-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.

Not if the posetive utility you receive from the money exceeds your indignation. As for the non-bolded part, see above.

-Saying I should go with what is or is not accepted by society is just an appeal to popularity.

I was not obligating you to follow the mores of society, but was merely pointing out that uneven splits among unequal contributors needn't be considered immoral. It was meant as an example, not an argument.

[R. U. Serious]

The gut-reponse is different from the rational decision, because the gut-reponse considerably changes the pay-off-table (as has been mentioned several times). The gut response always makes a big deal out of the social component, because as Wyrm said, humans are social animals. The experiment clearly states that it is a one-shot experiment, but while this is clear on a rational basis, our guts know that the issues deals with other humans and how they interact, and so points us to other decisions (decisions which take into account more than the money, and thereby considerably change the payofs in a way which is not warranted by the setup of the experiment, or rather which is ambiguous in the setup and therefore social stuff gets happily interpreted into it to rationalize our gut-feeling).

I am sure subtle differences in the setup will make quite a difference for the outcome. And by framing the experiment differently (emphasing or de-emphasizing the social aspect or whether or not there is "equal claim" to the money) will lead notably different results much in the way as I and others have specualted above.

[Nova Andromeda]

-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.

Not really, since the splitter has to consider the possibility of multiple ways of splitting the money, while the other has only to consider one. Trivial diference, certainly, but then the descider has only a trivial job also.

-Obviously, the decider must also look into the considerations of the splitter when judging his offer. Both sides have to look at the entire picture.

-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.

Not if the posetive utility you receive from the money exceeds your indignation. As for the non-bolded part, see above.

-Reread the exceptions I pointed out several times previously. I've also stipulated the "all things are equal" simplification. There's no need to make the problem unnecessarily complicated when there is abundant disagreement on the trivial case.

[Lord Zentei]

Obviously, the decider must also look into the considerations of the splitter when judging his offer. Both sides have to look at the entire picture.

No, he does not. He is not obligated to do so, at any rate.

Not if the posetive utility you receive from the money exceeds your indignation. As for the non-bolded part, see above.

-Reread the exceptions I pointed out several times previously. I've also stipulated the "all things are equal" simplification. There's no need to make the problem unnecessarily complicated when there is abundant disagreement on the trivial case.

I rather maintain that this particular point holds even in the simplified scenario. You have asserted that the descider should consider moral ramifications, hence indignation must be weighed against posetive utility that the money would bring.

[Nova Andromeda]

Obviously, the decider must also look into the considerations of the splitter when judging his offer. Both sides have to look at the entire picture.

No, he does not. He is not obligated to do so, at any rate.

-The splitter isn't "obligated" to do anything other than select the first division that comes to mind either.

Not if the posetive utility you receive from the money exceeds your indignation. As for the non-bolded part, see above.

-Reread the exceptions I pointed out several times previously. I've also stipulated the "all things are equal" simplification. There's no need to make the problem unnecessarily complicated when there is abundant disagreement on the trivial case.

I rather maintain that this particular point holds even in the simplified scenario. You have asserted that the descider should consider moral ramifications, hence indignation must be weighed against posetive utility that the money would bring.

-In the trivial case the positive utility gained by the decider is outweighed by the negative utility of both empowering and encouraging the splitter's immoral action. You'd reward an immoral person by giving them a net gain in power (from the money)?
-As I've said previously, a possible exception is if the decider desprately needs the money he may have little choice but to agree to an unfair split. However, that is an unnecessary complication.

[Lord Zentei]

-The splitter isn't "obligated" to do anything other than select the first division that comes to mind either.

Not equivalent, since he must by necessity consider what the other's reaction will be without knowing it in advance. In that too, they are unequal.

-In the trivial case the positive utility gained by the decider is outweighed by the negative utility of both empowering and encouraging the splitter's immoral action. You'd reward an immoral person by giving them a net gain in power (from the money)?

That is a black/white fallacy. Why is the posetive utility inevitably outweighed by what you claim to be empowering an immoral action? Surely that is a function on the degree of inequity and the scale of the money involved?

-As I've said previously, a possible exception is if the decider desprately needs the money he may have little choice but to agree to an unfair split. However, that is an unnecessary complication.

I wasn't about to include it.

[SCRawl]

I first heard of this thought experiment a few years ago, when they demonstrated it on Canada's version of The Discovery Channel. I tried it out with a friend of mine -- the thought experiment, not the actual experiment -- and he frustrated the attempt. He said that he couldn't be sure of the fact that the money was rightfully in the hands of the splitter, and that he wouldn't accept any portion of it. Mind you, he makes a stupid amount of money, so the kind of return on this particular investment wasn't likely to be of any significance.