= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Unpacking the Concept of "Blackmail" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (136)
Agent 1 negotiates with agent 2. Agent 1 can take option A or B, while agent 2 can take option C or D. Agent 1 communicates that they will take option A if agent 2 takes option C and will take option B if agent 2 takes option D.
If utilities are such that for
and for
or
this is an offer.
If
or
this is blackmail by agent 1.
If
or
this is agent 1 giving in to agent 2's blackmail.
I don't think I mentioned anything about any "default" anywhere?
(Unless I overlooked something in the other cases there is either no reason to negotiate, no prospect of success in negotiating or at least one party acting irrationally. It is implicitly assumed that preferences between combinations of the options only depend on the preferences between the individual options. )
Notice that under this definition punishing someone for a crime is a form of blackmail.
I'm not sure that's a problem.
Or maybe: Change blackmail in the above to threat, and define blackmail as a threat not legitimized by social conventions.
Well, at least we've unpacked the concept of "default" into the concept of social conventions.
Or into a concept of ethics. Blackmail involves a threat of unethical punishment.
I think we can do better than that. In cases where the law is morally justified, punishing someone for a crime is retaliation. I think part of the intent of the concept of blackmail is that the threatened harm be unprovoked.