you ignore any information you can glean from knowing that “the other guy reallocates to $0/$1000”
Good point, but if your utility function over possible worlds is allowed to depend on the total sums donated to each charity and additionally on some aggregate information about other people’s decisions (“the market” or “balance of power”), I think the argument still goes through, as long as the number of people is large enough that your aggregate information can’t be perceptibly influenced by a single person’s decision.
I think the argument still goes through, as long as the number of people is large enough
This sounds suspiciously like trying to defend your existing position in the face of a new argument, rather than an honest attempt at evaluating the new evidence from scratch. And we haven’t gotten to your conclusions about politics yet.
Good point, but if your utility function over possible worlds is allowed to depend on the total sums donated to each charity and additionally on some aggregate information about other people’s decisions (“the market” or “balance of power”), I think the argument still goes through, as long as the number of people is large enough that your aggregate information can’t be perceptibly influenced by a single person’s decision.
This sounds suspiciously like trying to defend your existing position in the face of a new argument, rather than an honest attempt at evaluating the new evidence from scratch. And we haven’t gotten to your conclusions about politics yet.
The original argument also relied on the number of people being large enough, I think.