Choosing A here, in this moment, you signal that you care about merit, or rather you signal that you have certain emotions in response of certain behavior and that these emotions guide your actions. Which can motivate other to behave in a certain way.
The point is that the probability to really found yourself in such situation is very remote.
On the other hand, I think that many people dislike the lack of recognition of merit (me included), and a society that doesn’t motivate others to behave right, will be more instable and will cause more pain in the long run.
You answered A so I can think that you care equally about people, and you don’t see merit’s reward as an intrinsic good.
In this case I will be less motivated to collaborate with you.
I answered B (at least in the first case), so people can think that I care more about those who do good actions, and that I see merit’s reward as an intrinsic good.
I didn’t consider any signalling benefit of my answer. I wasn’t thinking: “what answer should I make so that people reading this think I’m X sort of person”; I just answered honestly.
I don’t care equally about people, and I’ll normally choose B. However:
Alice would die anyway. Since they’re both going to die, might as well reduce suffering.
No one finds out about this, so my answer has no long term relevance.
I die as well, and so receive no benefit from this.
It is true that no one will ever discover what has happened, but “good willed” people can make a social contract to ensure mutual protection.
Maybe it is just the opposite of Roko’s basilisk: rather than threatens people, the social contract protects them, and enhances solidariety.
Of coure the contract could work as motivator only if people trust each other: spontaneously choosing B) people signal that their “moral compass” recognize merit as a value in itself, and that they will punish or reward people because they want to do so.
I choose A in all 3 cases. I thought no one would know what happened?
This invalidates your entire signalling argument.
Refine your post and figure out the question that you want to ask.
Choosing A here, in this moment, you signal that you care about merit, or rather you signal that you have certain emotions in response of certain behavior and that these emotions guide your actions. Which can motivate other to behave in a certain way.
Sorry, my fault.
The point is that the probability to really found yourself in such situation is very remote.
On the other hand, I think that many people dislike the lack of recognition of merit (me included), and a society that doesn’t motivate others to behave right, will be more instable and will cause more pain in the long run.
Anyway, thanks.
I edited the post as you advised to be more comprehensible.
I die after I make the choice.
No one finds out about my choice.
The first drastically limits how much I care about the consequences.
The second removes any signalling, benefit and only my internal moral compass is relevant.
The question was set up so that the concern that would make me choose B ceased to be concerns.
It depends if someone can trust our promises.
You answered A so I can think that you care equally about people, and you don’t see merit’s reward as an intrinsic good.
In this case I will be less motivated to collaborate with you.
I answered B (at least in the first case), so people can think that I care more about those who do good actions, and that I see merit’s reward as an intrinsic good.
I didn’t consider any signalling benefit of my answer. I wasn’t thinking: “what answer should I make so that people reading this think I’m X sort of person”; I just answered honestly.
I don’t care equally about people, and I’ll normally choose B. However:
Alice would die anyway. Since they’re both going to die, might as well reduce suffering.
No one finds out about this, so my answer has no long term relevance.
I die as well, and so receive no benefit from this.
Good points, I should have been more explicit.
It is true that no one will ever discover what has happened, but “good willed” people can make a social contract to ensure mutual protection.
Maybe it is just the opposite of Roko’s basilisk: rather than threatens people, the social contract protects them, and enhances solidariety.
Of coure the contract could work as motivator only if people trust each other: spontaneously choosing B) people signal that their “moral compass” recognize merit as a value in itself, and that they will punish or reward people because they want to do so.