I was trying to find a counterexample to the “both parties worse off” part of that definition, but now I believe it is correct.
Even in what at first appear to only harm one party, such as blackmail, if carried out, the blackmailer spent his bargaining chip.
However, what about cases such as “If you continue to approach me, I’ll shoot”?
What is the damage done to the shooting party? Assuming no legal retribution and no moral guilt, no loss of respect in the eyes of others, then is his loss the loss of amunition?
Well, if the shooter has absolutely no loss of utility done to him by the act of shooting, what’d be the point of warning the other guy in the first place? He’d just let him approach and then shoot him.
I see your point. Even if killing him would be a neutral result, and not killing him would be a positive, one still would make a sacrifice by shooting.
Yes. For some reason, I consistently add an “er.”
Edit: as I understand The Strategy of Conflict, a threat is a conditional promise which will make the both parties worse off, if carried out.
I was trying to find a counterexample to the “both parties worse off” part of that definition, but now I believe it is correct. Even in what at first appear to only harm one party, such as blackmail, if carried out, the blackmailer spent his bargaining chip.
However, what about cases such as “If you continue to approach me, I’ll shoot”? What is the damage done to the shooting party? Assuming no legal retribution and no moral guilt, no loss of respect in the eyes of others, then is his loss the loss of amunition?
Well, if the shooter has absolutely no loss of utility done to him by the act of shooting, what’d be the point of warning the other guy in the first place? He’d just let him approach and then shoot him.
I see your point. Even if killing him would be a neutral result, and not killing him would be a positive, one still would make a sacrifice by shooting.
Good point.