Being able to make collective choices at all seems to be an obvious benefit, even given pure selfishness. To consider a simpler example, imagine a group of twelve purely selfish soldiers. Would these soldiers agree to appoint a lieutenant, who they would agree to obey the orders of? Well, if they do appoint a lieutenant, there’s a chance that the lieutenant will order them to do something dangerous. But if they don’t appoint a lieutenant, they won’t be able to fight effectively and will all be killed by the enemy anyway. The selfish choice is clearly to appoint the lieutenant.
Even if they would all agree to choose a lieutenant and obey his orders, that doesn’t mean they would agree to abide by a collective choice rule that effectively gives the majority a permanent blank check. The battle scenario involves a unanimous agreement (that is only a special case of collective choice and happens to align perfectly with individual choice). Your battle scenario seems more like what I meant by “case by case basis” than agreeing to do whatever the village council says (even if it hurts their individual interests).
Presumably, the selfish agents wouldn’t agree to give the lieutenant unlimited power over them or even rule beyond the length of the battle. Even if everyone agrees to abide by the collective choice for a given action, why would they agree to be bound by collective choice for any action the majority agrees to take up?
I might agree beforehand to help pay for a pizza with a topping that is selected by the majority of my two friends and I, but I surely wouldn’t agree to be bound to do anything that my two friends agree should be done.
Feel free to ignore this comment if it is distracting you from the goal of your post.
They are perfectly selfish, not perfectly rational. Even a selfish person can believe it is intrinsically good to have a lieutenant (king, council) above them.
Being able to make collective choices at all seems to be an obvious benefit, even given pure selfishness. To consider a simpler example, imagine a group of twelve purely selfish soldiers. Would these soldiers agree to appoint a lieutenant, who they would agree to obey the orders of? Well, if they do appoint a lieutenant, there’s a chance that the lieutenant will order them to do something dangerous. But if they don’t appoint a lieutenant, they won’t be able to fight effectively and will all be killed by the enemy anyway. The selfish choice is clearly to appoint the lieutenant.
Even if they would all agree to choose a lieutenant and obey his orders, that doesn’t mean they would agree to abide by a collective choice rule that effectively gives the majority a permanent blank check. The battle scenario involves a unanimous agreement (that is only a special case of collective choice and happens to align perfectly with individual choice). Your battle scenario seems more like what I meant by “case by case basis” than agreeing to do whatever the village council says (even if it hurts their individual interests).
Presumably, the selfish agents wouldn’t agree to give the lieutenant unlimited power over them or even rule beyond the length of the battle. Even if everyone agrees to abide by the collective choice for a given action, why would they agree to be bound by collective choice for any action the majority agrees to take up?
I might agree beforehand to help pay for a pizza with a topping that is selected by the majority of my two friends and I, but I surely wouldn’t agree to be bound to do anything that my two friends agree should be done.
Feel free to ignore this comment if it is distracting you from the goal of your post.
They are perfectly selfish, not perfectly rational. Even a selfish person can believe it is intrinsically good to have a lieutenant (king, council) above them.