If utility is unbounded, maximum disutility is undefined, and if it’s bounded, then 3^^^3 is by definition smaller than the maximum so you should pay all to mugger B.
Pay both Muggers a split of the money: For example: If you pay half to each, and they’re both telling the truth, you have a 25% chance of not getting either disutility and not having to resist/escape at all (unless one or both is faking, which may improve your odds.)
I think trading a 10% chance of utility A for a 10% chance of utility B, with B < A is irrational per the definition of utility (as far as I understand; you can have marginal diminishing utility on money, but not marginally diminishing utility on *utility. I’m less sure about risk aversion though.)
That’s not fighting the hypothetical. Fighting the hypothetical is first paying one, then telling the other you’ll go back to the bank to pay him too. Or pulling out your kung fu skills, which is really fighting the hypothetical.
I may be fighting the hypothetical here, but …
If utility is unbounded, maximum disutility is undefined, and if it’s bounded, then 3^^^3 is by definition smaller than the maximum so you should pay all to mugger B.
I think trading a 10% chance of utility A for a 10% chance of utility B, with B < A is irrational per the definition of utility (as far as I understand; you can have marginal diminishing utility on money, but not marginally diminishing utility on *utility. I’m less sure about risk aversion though.)
That’s not fighting the hypothetical. Fighting the hypothetical is first paying one, then telling the other you’ll go back to the bank to pay him too. Or pulling out your kung fu skills, which is really fighting the hypothetical.