And what is the distinction between giving utility and not giving disutility? As consequentialists, I thought we were committed to the understanding that they are the same thing.
You seem to be assuming that committing to ‘not giving in to extortion’ will be effective in preventing rational threats from being made and carried out. Why do you assume that? Or, if you are not making that assumption, then how can you claim that you are not also turning down possibly beneficial trades?
You seem to be assuming that committing to ‘not giving in to extortion’ will be effective in preventing rational threats from being made and carried out. Why do you assume that?
Because then you don’t get a reputation in the criminal underground for being vulnerable to extortion—and so don’t face a circlling pack of extortionists, each eager for a piece of you.
And what is the distinction between giving utility and not giving disutility? As consequentialists, I thought we were committed to the understanding that they are the same thing.
The distinction is that I can commit to not giving into extortion, and not also turn down possibly beneficial trades.
You seem to be assuming that committing to ‘not giving in to extortion’ will be effective in preventing rational threats from being made and carried out. Why do you assume that? Or, if you are not making that assumption, then how can you claim that you are not also turning down possibly beneficial trades?
Because then you don’t get a reputation in the criminal underground for being vulnerable to extortion—and so don’t face a circlling pack of extortionists, each eager for a piece of you.