Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An agent with intransitive preferences who is willing to ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An agent with intransitive preferences who is willing to make exchanges can be exploited without limit.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    0 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If an agent prefers X to Y, Y to Z, and Z to X, the agent will pay to exchange Y for X, Z for Y, and X for Z.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Starting from any state, this cycle of paid exchanges can repeat indefinitely, draining the agent's resources.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Related

    If an agent prefers X to Y, Y to Z, and Z to X, the agent will pay to exchange Y...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Starting from any state, this cycle of paid exchanges can repeat indefinitely, d...

    Similar

    If an agent's preferences are intransitive and the agent is willing to...91%If an agent prefers X to Y, Y to Z, and Z to X, the agent will pay to ...79%Agents will refuse to trade or adjust preferences to eliminate intrans...77%An agent can decide on the basis of a certain desire73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: economics
    View source passageHide passage
    The barebones theory of rationality discussed above in Section 1.1 takes an agent’s preferences (rankings of states of affairs) to be rational if they are complete and transitive, and it takes the agent’s choice to be rational if the agent does not prefer any feasible alternative to the one he or she chooses. Such a theory of rationality is clearly too weak, because it says nothing about belief or what rationality implies when agents do not know (with certainty) everything relevant to their
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (1 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit