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.
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.