= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ThisSpaceAvailable comments on Semi-open thread: 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 (31)
Blackmail exists when you threaten (explicitly or implicitly) to take a course of action that harms another agent unless that agent takes an action which benefits you. The credibility of your precommitments is not relevant to whether or not an action is blackmail, although it is a factor in how effective your blackmail is.
That the blackmail threat is typically an action which harms the blackmailer is a red herring.
What does "an action that harms another agent" mean? For instance, if I threaten to not give you a chicken unless you give me $5, does "I don't give you a chicken" count as "a course of action that harms another agent"? Or does it have to be an active course, rather than act of omission?
Is it still blackmail if it's "justified"? For instance, if you steal me car, and I threaten to call the police if you don't give it back, is that blackmail?
It's not blackmail unless, given that I don't give you $5, you would be worse of, CDT-wise, not giving me the chicken than giving me the chicken. Which is to say, you really want to give me the chicken but you're threatening to withhold it because you think you can make $5 out of it. If I were a Don't-give-$5-bot, or just broke, you would have no reason to threaten to withhold the chicken. If you don't want to give me the chicken, but are willing to do so if I give you $5, that's just normal trade.