• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hypothetical: $100 Game

What is your proposal?

  • $100 to me, $0 to player B

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • $99 to me, $1 to player B

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • $90 to me, $10 to player B

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • $80 to me, $20 to player B

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • $70 to me, $30 to player B

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • $60 to me, $40 to player B

    Votes: 6 11.8%
  • $50 to me, $50 to player B

    Votes: 32 62.7%
  • $40 to me, $60 to player B

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • $30 to me, $70 to player B

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $20 or less to me, $80 or more to player B

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    51
Ahhh- now I feel like I am reading your argument for the first time. It makes sense to me and thank you for sticking with me. You're 100% correct that I disagree with the social order you suggest. And that my social order would be more honest and better, but that is just my opinion. Truly, I believe we should do what is best for ourselves always. I also believe that means doing good deeds for others when appropriate and the cost to ourselves isn't greater than the benefit to ourselves (but I digress :)). But in a game over $100, my concern is only for myself. It's a game and I'm in it to win it. If it we a life-changing amount, I would certainly change my answer to a degree. And I would do this so that I could feel good about myself. But for $100, I'd take the risk as person A and as person B, I'd respect person A for making that choice (though no matter what the amount, if I were person B I wouldn't punish person A - he maximized what was important to him even if that wouldn't have been my choice in a role reversal)

I am glad that you are consistent with your belief system. However, I also think my preferred way of doing things is the most honest. Its weird how that we both can feel that way, but we do. Of course, who says that a reasoned situation will only lead to one answer. Math problems can often have multiple answers or even an infinite number, all with equal validity. I suspect that both our answers are the most honest for that same reason.
 
Here's the difference between you and me: I can and WILL blame person A for being a twat. Why would I want to reward someone for that? I wouldn't. So, no money for them. They find it ok to make sure I don't get any money, I find it okay to do the same to them in return. :) After all, the results of the coin-toss say that I have that power. I am the one who decides. And when faced with punishing or rewarding a jerk, I'm going to go with punishing them.

To answer your question - why would I reward them? Because I understand their priority is to maximize their earnings in the game and will not fault them for that. I understand the emotion involved, especially if you had expectations of receiving anything. But in a game for $100, if I lost that initial coin toss I wouldn't be expecting anything. So I think the difference is in our expectations and therefore our emotions and then our responses.


But the real reason I'm writing to you is because I like your signature. very cool.
 
Are you incapable of making a point without such crude language? really?

I use the language I find appropriate for the point I'm making.

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 think you actually understand my belief at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In Person A's case, by giving Person B money, he takes away money from himself.

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 B's case, he gives up nothing to give to person A.

In person B's case, he actually damages sopciety for rewarding selfish behavior.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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:
To answer your question - why would I reward them? Because I understand their priority is to maximize their earnings in the game and will not fault them for that. I understand the emotion involved, especially if you had expectations of receiving anything. But in a game for $100, if I lost that initial coin toss I wouldn't be expecting anything. So I think the difference is in our expectations and therefore our emotions and then our responses.
But the coin toss doesn't say who gets what money. The coin toss says *I* decide. The coin toss designates one person the ability make an offer and the other person to refuse.

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. ;)

But the real reason I'm writing to you is because I like your signature. very cool.
Thank you!
 
I use the language I find appropriate for the point I'm making.



I don't think you actually understand my belief at all.

I don't care about the money, I care about the mentality that tries to maximize personal profit and expects others to catrer to their greed. I think for society to function, such a mentality should be punished in ushc 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 ppunishment 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 an idiot, they'll reward person A for being greedy.

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 B's case, he actually damages sopciety for rewarding selfish behavior.



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.




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.

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.


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.
 
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.

Thank you Tucker. Those were the words I was skating around in my posts because they were on the tip of my tongue. At the heart of the human is a social animal. We have evolved to function socially and instinctually feel that sharing is necessary. This is ingrained in our culture and always will be. This is one of the reasons I view natural law to be invalid because it imagines man in an unnatural state, that of being alone, and derives its principals from there.

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.
 
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 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.

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.
 
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.

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.

Your logic is under the assumption that I believe 'so many people wouldn't give A the money' - but as I said - I don't believe it. So I would attempt to maximize profit with a $100/0 proposition.
 
Your logic is under the assumption that I believe 'so many people wouldn't give A the money' - but as I said - I don't believe it. So I would attempt to maximize profit with a $100/0 proposition.

What is the basis for you not to believe what we're telling you? I have no motivation whatsoever do accept the 100/0 offer. None. In fact, I *only* have motivation NOT to accept it.
 
What is the basis for you not to believe what we're telling you? I have no motivation whatsoever do accept the 100/0 offer. None. In fact, I *only* have motivation NOT to accept it.

Have you read the convo's between Mega, Tucker and myself? It's all explained there. It comes down to the fact that I think people should expect people to be greedy and that isn't immoral of those who choose to be greedy. That society is happier not sacrificing for the 'good of the pack' and instead, taking what they can, as this is natural to them IMO,under the rules that they don't cheat, lie, murder, etc. They (and I assume you) believe that as a member of society, if you see a way to distribute wealth without having to give any present value up, you should for the good of the pack and if you don't, then you should be punished. It's just a difference in what we call ideal societies.

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.
 
What is the basis for you not to believe what we're telling you? I have no motivation whatsoever do accept the 100/0 offer. None. In fact, I *only* have motivation NOT to accept it.

To take it a step further, I believe it's easier to say that we'd deny person A the $100, but if we had the chance, we'd give it to him. That's just what I believe most people would do. I could of course be wrong. But that's my belief.
 
Have you read the convo's between Mega, Tucker and myself? It's all explained there. It comes down to the fact that I think people should expect people to be greedy and that isn't immoral of those who choose to be greedy. That society is happier not sacrificing for the 'good of the pack' and instead, taking what they can, as this is natural to them IMO,under the rules that they don't cheat, lie, murder, etc. They (and I assume you) believe that as a member of society, if you see a way to distribute wealth without having to give any present value up, you should for the good of the pack and if you don't, then you should be punished. It's just a difference in what we call ideal societies.

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.

Yeah, I read your convo. And what you say makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I don't expect people to be greedy and mean. Just because you do, doesn't mean the rest of do or that we're lying about it. I will not reward someone behaving in a manner that I personally feel is asshole-ish. And, I believe that offering 100/0 is the mark of a complete twat. I would refuse to reward that. I have no motivation whatsoever to reward a behavior I find personally appalling. In fact, I have a lot of motivation to punish said behavior.

Not sure why you think we'd be lying about that.
 
Have you read the convo's between Mega, Tucker and myself? It's all explained there. It comes down to the fact that I think people should expect people to be greedy and that isn't immoral of those who choose to be greedy. That society is happier not sacrificing for the 'good of the pack' and instead, taking what they can, as this is natural to them IMO,under the rules that they don't cheat, lie, murder, etc. They (and I assume you) believe that as a member of society, if you see a way to distribute wealth without having to give any present value up, you should for the good of the pack and if you don't, then you should be punished. It's just a difference in what we call ideal societies.

Less ideal society and more recognition of human instinct. People are both self maximizers and social and any free society is going to attempt to find balance between the two.

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.

I would say that you have met some very different people than I have throughout life. Almost everyone I know has some notion of fairness.
 
To take it a step further, I believe it's easier to say that we'd deny person A the $100, but if we had the chance, we'd give it to him. That's just what I believe most people would do. I could of course be wrong. But that's my belief.

PFFFFTTTT... Think again, bucko. I'd give him the middle finger. "Deal or no deal??" NO DEAL! :lol:

I don't say things I don't mean.
 
Less ideal society and more recognition of human instinct. People are both self maximizers and social and any free society is going to attempt to find balance between the two.



I would say that you have met some very different people than I have throughout life. Almost everyone I know has some notion of fairness.

Good clarification on ideals vs recognition of human instinct. And to clarify - I strongly support fairness. If someone breaks the rules of society - if they cheat, lie, steal, etc. They should be punished! And please don't get me wrong, I'm a very giving person. But, as I explained yesterday in other messages, when I ask myself why, it's because of morals. Because I want to be moral and have a desire to fill these morals. I hope all people have that desire. But I believe the fulfill those morals because the reprucussions of not fulfilling those morals are you feeling like a bad person. And so I do it for me is my conclusion. If I were indifferent to morals, I wouldn't do anything good unless it happened to benefit me. But this is not the case. And so I assume that the reason I do it is for me. You believe we are moral because it is human nature to be moral. I disagree. I think it's human nature to know what morals are, but we choose to be moral for ourselves. Because it feels good or at least doesn't make us feel bad for not being moral.

Anyway, bringing this back to the topic - I don't think it's immoral to expect someone to maximize their potential profits so long as they aren't immoral. That is to say, aren't stealing, cheating, lying, etc. If they follow those rules, I would allow it.
 
PFFFFTTTT... Think again, bucko. I'd give him the middle finger. "Deal or no deal??" NO DEAL! :lol:

I don't say things I don't mean.

you make me laugh. Not at you, but with you. That's fine. If that makes you happy, that's what you should do. But I don't think that's what makes most people happy - that's just my opinion. I think most people would still want to make another happy even if that person didn't extend a hand to them. (though from my view, they didn't take anything from them either)
 
Yeah, I read your convo. And what you say makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I don't expect people to be greedy and mean. Just because you do, doesn't mean the rest of do or that we're lying about it. I will not reward someone behaving in a manner that I personally feel is asshole-ish. And, I believe that offering 100/0 is the mark of a complete twat. I would refuse to reward that. I have no motivation whatsoever to reward a behavior I find personally appalling. In fact, I have a lot of motivation to punish said behavior.

Not sure why you think we'd be lying about that.

I don't expect people to be greedy AND mean. Just greedy. I don't think greedy is mean. I think greedy is natural. I think being greedy and being immoral to satisfy that greed is mean. So the difference we seem to have is what is immoral.
 
Last edited:
I'd split it 50/50, since that would be pretty much guaranteed to get me $50. I know that if I was offered less than the other guy was taking, I'd be sorely tempted to say no to the deal just out of spite. I'd have to assume he'd be the same way.
 
Have you read the convo's between Mega, Tucker and myself? It's all explained there. It comes down to the fact that I think people should expect people to be greedy and that isn't immoral of those who choose to be greedy. That society is happier not sacrificing for the 'good of the pack' and instead, taking what they can, as this is natural to them IMO,under the rules that they don't cheat, lie, murder, etc. They (and I assume you) believe that as a member of society, if you see a way to distribute wealth without having to give any present value up, you should for the good of the pack and if you don't, then you should be punished. It's just a difference in what we call ideal societies.

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.

Even in a perfectly rational world, with no emotional investment in the game, Player B will be completely indifferent between accepting or rejecting a $100/$0 split. Since this is the case and he has two options, in a completely rational world he would STILL reject the offer 50% of the time, making Player A's expected value only $50...or roughly the same as he'd get by offering a $50/$50 split that was accepted 100% of the time.

Now when you factor in emotions, it's a virtual certainty that the $100/$0 split will be rejected a lot MORE than 50% of the time. With a $100/$0 split, it costs Player B absolutely nothing to take revenge on Player A for screwing him over. Since this deal will certainly be rejected more than half of the time, its expected value is much less than $50. You're better off just offering the $50/50 split.

I'm of the opinion that the ideal offer for Player A is somewhere around $65/$35. It rewards Player A with the lion's share of the pot, but gives Player B enough money that he won't let his emotions get the best of him most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Both people are out to maximize there profit

Person A has to determine what the minimum Person B would accept without rejecting the offer, with the knowledge that should person b be offended by the offer Person A will get nothing

$0 to Person B will be rejected a majority of the time as Person B has zero interest in seeing Person A gaining wealth.

$1 to Person B would most likely be rejected a large percent of the time (assuming the people playing have good incomes and good wealth and that $1 or $100 does not represent alot of money to either. Should $1 represent alot of money the chances of it being accepted rises.

The highest # of offers that would be accepted would most likely fall between a 33% to 50% split. As most Adult Americans would not particularly miss $33-50 the chances of them rejecting the money still exists. Overall in the US at this dollar value this is less an exercise in economics and more of one in sociology and what people would view as being fair to all parties.


Change the dollar values and the likelyhood of rejecting a small % drops. For example if the dollar value that was being given was $1 million USD, and you were offered $1000 and Person A would take home $999 000 a higher number of people would take that offer, as $1000 is still a reasonable amount of money. While an equivalent % of $100 would be rejected far more often

Overall with significant dollar values people would accept offer's that were less "fair" as the economic loss would be overcome the sense of loss of fairness in the exchange. This is a failure of this "Game theory" and the way it has generally been presented
 
Overall with significant dollar values people would accept offer's that were less "fair" as the economic loss would be overcome the sense of loss of fairness in the exchange. This is a failure of this "Game theory" and the way it has generally been presented

Good point, $1 does not mean a lot to other people. I should have used bigger amounts.
 
you make me laugh. Not at you, but with you. That's fine. If that makes you happy, that's what you should do. But I don't think that's what makes most people happy - that's just my opinion. I think most people would still want to make another happy even if that person didn't extend a hand to them. (though from my view, they didn't take anything from them either)

I would have no inclination to make an asshole happy. And someone who just gipped me out of money is an asshole. Now, if I was person A, I may well decide to give person B all of it out of a desire to 'make them happy', but that's assuming that the person hasn't done anything to make me think he's an asshole. I will give the benefit of the doubt. However, if the person has just proven to me that they don't give a rat's patootie about MY happiness (in getting some of the money) then I am certainly not going to give a rat's patootie about theirs. Rewarding jerks doesn't make me warm and fuzzy inside. ;)
 
Good clarification on ideals vs recognition of human instinct. And to clarify - I strongly support fairness. If someone breaks the rules of society - if they cheat, lie, steal, etc. They should be punished! And please don't get me wrong, I'm a very giving person. But, as I explained yesterday in other messages, when I ask myself why, it's because of morals. Because I want to be moral and have a desire to fill these morals. I hope all people have that desire. But I believe the fulfill those morals because the reprucussions of not fulfilling those morals are you feeling like a bad person. And so I do it for me is my conclusion. If I were indifferent to morals, I wouldn't do anything good unless it happened to benefit me. But this is not the case. And so I assume that the reason I do it is for me. You believe we are moral because it is human nature to be moral. I disagree. I think it's human nature to know what morals are, but we choose to be moral for ourselves. Because it feels good or at least doesn't make us feel bad for not being moral.

Anyway, bringing this back to the topic - I don't think it's immoral to expect someone to maximize their potential profits so long as they aren't immoral. That is to say, aren't stealing, cheating, lying, etc. If they follow those rules, I would allow it.

Yes. I am sure you are a moral person. However, you are missing the point. I have pointed out an aspect of human nature and explained why it is important. If you really look around, you will see that its importance is self evident as it has a very real and strong power to shape our society. You may disagree whether this aspect of human nature is a good thing, but barring some genetic change, its not going to go away. Ultimately, people are not solely self-maximizers because if they were, we would not even have this conversation because it would be obvious to both of us. We do not discuss the proper number of arms and legs for example.

You can and should state your case why you think one value system is better than another, but you are doing yourself a disservice in pretending that people are something that they are not. The majority would be uncomfortable in a strictly justice based system (with no mercy or empathy) and they have a legitimate reason for feeling that way due the fact it is in their very make-up.
 
When I asked my sister what she would do in this game, she told me she would only accept the 100/0 split if person A was her husband, because then she'd get it anyway. Despite the fact that it would be pointless to have the game played with two related people, I thought it was a funny answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom