It seems like a case of a binary commitment. Breaking the commitment at all gives you −20 hedons, but breaking it even more only gives you −1 hedons per break or whatever (which is outweighed by the gains from breaking it more). I think most internal commitments are set up this way because it’s easier to make a commitment like this explicit and enforceable than one that’s more continuous over actions.
Sure, but you don’t know it’s bad. If you’re in for a penny, that’s evidence (if you trust your own judgement) that it’s actually a good investment, and should go in for a pound if you can afford it.
Absolutely! But I think a lot of people implicitly do the equivalent when they try to be or appear consistent at all costs. The reasoning goes something like, “I believe X, therefore I must have a good reason for it and so X must be true!”
It seems like a case of a binary commitment. Breaking the commitment at all gives you −20 hedons, but breaking it even more only gives you −1 hedons per break or whatever (which is outweighed by the gains from breaking it more). I think most internal commitments are set up this way because it’s easier to make a commitment like this explicit and enforceable than one that’s more continuous over actions.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
That’s just throwing good money after bad.
Sure, but you don’t know it’s bad. If you’re in for a penny, that’s evidence (if you trust your own judgement) that it’s actually a good investment, and should go in for a pound if you can afford it.
Of course, treating your own belief in a proposition as evidence for that proposition seems like a rather dangerous thing to do.
Absolutely! But I think a lot of people implicitly do the equivalent when they try to be or appear consistent at all costs. The reasoning goes something like, “I believe X, therefore I must have a good reason for it and so X must be true!”
Depends, you don’t necessarily want to recompute prepositions every time they come up.