$100 to me, $0 to player B
$99 to me, $1 to player B
$90 to me, $10 to player B
$80 to me, $20 to player B
$70 to me, $30 to player B
$60 to me, $40 to player B
$50 to me, $50 to player B
$40 to me, $60 to player B
$30 to me, $70 to player B
$20 or less to me, $80 or more to player B
But the real reason I'm writing to you is because I like your signature. very cool.
I don't think you actually understand my belief at all.Anyway - I understand your belief. You believe the money should be split. I believe that any person not doing what is best for them is a fool. That doesn't mean not to split the money if that's what's best. It means trying to maximize utility. If it makes them feel good to split it, then so be it, that' s a consideration. But if their goal is to maximize profit, then I say go 100/0. But so many people say they wouldn't give A the money in that case. But I don't believe it.
I don't care about the money, I care about the mentality that tries to maximize personal profit and expects others to cater to their greed. I think for society to function, such a mentality should be punished in such a way as to induce a more socially acceptable alteration in their behavior.
Since that person's driving force is their greed, the most effective punishment is to strike at their greed by removing any chance for financial benefit from their greed.
If person B is a "good person" they will punish person A for being greedy and selfish. If they are not interested in the betterment of society, they'll reward person A for being greedy.I believe that a person in B's situation should be willing to look at the two scenario's if offered 100/0 - either I get nothing and A gets nothing OR I get nothing and A gets $100. They end up the same either way. They don't 'balance' anything. The game is to maximize your profit. Person A is trying to do just that. Person B has no say in how much profit they get. So why wouldn't they respect person A's game of maximizing the profit? I have a feeling that person B would be a good person and give person A the money understanding his intent to maximize.
Just because you want to overlook the rational and logical benefit of having punished somoene for selfish behavior doesn't negate the existence of that benefit.
False. He's only working with potential money until Person B makes their decision. By making an unselfish offer, he actually has the chance of gaining money. By not making an unselfish offer, assuming Person B is a good person who understands the sociatal benifits of punsihing selfish and greedy behavior, he has actually squandered his chance for having actual money due to his greedy selfish behavior.In Person A's case, by giving Person B money, he takes away money from himself.
In person B's case, he actually damages sopciety for rewarding selfish behavior.In Person B's case, he gives up nothing to give to person A.
Person B holds no obligation to Person A. Person A has no obligation to Person B. They both hav e an obligation to society though. If Perosn A decides to shirk those responsibilites by being greedy and selfish, person B is still obligated to punish that behavior for the good of society.If anything, I would think Person B would be more immoral for not giving the money at the cost of nothing than person A not giving money due to the cost of money.
I was offering my opinion of selfish and greedy people. I firmly believe they deserve some from of punsihment aimed at behavior modification for the good of society. Society requires people to act in non-greedy, unselfish ways at times. This would be such a time.And simply calling person A names and saying bad things about him for not agreeing with you in a situation other than 50/50 split isn't a sound argument.
The flaw with your reasoning is that you are assuming that the money is Person A's to begin with simply because they make the initial choice. That's illogical and irrational. The money is not theirs until Person B accepts their offer.
The only thing Person A actually has is the chance to behave in either an antisocial or social fashion.
Person B has the chance to pass judgement on whether person As behaivor was antisocial or social, and then has the opportunity to reward or punish Person A for their behavioral choice.
If person A chooses an anti-social approach, Person B is morally obligated to punish person B for their anti-social choice. If person A makes the social choice, then Person B is morally obligated to reward them for their decision.
While you may not be aware of it, this is why people seem to agree that they would reject a 100/0 split or an "unfair" split if they were person B. They might say they are just doing so to screw PErson A for being a douche, but the truth is they are acting out a subconscious drive to punish anti-social behavior for the good of the pack.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 06-15-10 at 01:46 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Do I understand that person A would want to maximize their profit? Sure. That is within his "right" as the game is defined. And it is within my "right" to see him as a twat and tell him no.
Thank you!But the real reason I'm writing to you is because I like your signature. very cool.
You are right - I didn't understand. Though I do understand now. I don't agree, but I understand. I misinterpretted what you were saying and thought you were trying to seek vengence. This doesn't make sense to me because it will give you nothing - often times vengence, if it is the sole motive, will only leave you feeling worse, which would be counter-productive in every aspect. But if you were doing it for the good of a higher social order that you wished to maintain, then you have motives that will have a benefit to your belief. Though I disagree with the premise of the social order you are trying to support, at least I understand your reasons.
As I said before, watch young kids play, they will act out their instincts in a very visible manner. Also, note to be happy, one largely has to follow their instincts or find a way to successfully rationalize them. If you want society to function well, the majority of people going to need to be happy or else we will have instability.
If your goal is to maximize profit, and you know that so many people have said that they wouldn't give A the money on a $100/$0 split, then by offering the $100/$0 split, you are failing to maximize your profit. Profit will be maximized at the point at which your average probable gain is greatest.But if their goal is to maximize profit, then I say go 100/0. But so many people say they wouldn't give A the money in that case. But I don't believe it.
If 1 out of 10 people would take the $100/$0 split, then you add 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+100 and divide the sum by 10 to get $10.
On the other hand, if 10 out of 10 people would take the $50/$50 split, then your average probable gain is $50.
In this case, the $50/$50 split is clearly a better way to maximize profit.
I beliieve that most members of society do (or should) expect person A to take as much as he can - to maximize profit. And so with that expectation, a member of society as person B should allow person A his profit since he didn't break any rules of the society (that I promote) of cheating, lying, murdering, etc. He earned it via the rules of the game and I as person B will allow it.