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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that McClennen's 'resolute choice' framework shows agents can be rationally immune to money pumps without requiring transitive preferences.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If resolute choice prevents money pumps only by ignoring preference revelation, it masks rather than solves the underlying intransitivity problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pre-commitment immunity requires explaining why non-transitive underlying preferences don't generate new exploitable decision points at commitment stage.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Agents who genuinely prefer A to B to C to A face genuine rational conflict; framing it as resolute planning doesn't eliminate the inconsistency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Resolute choice allows agents to pre-commit to plans that prevent exploitation, even if individual preferences seem intransitive in isolation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Money pump arguments assume myopic choice-by-choice decisions; resolute agents can rationally resist by treating sequences as unified wholes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Transitivity requirements conflate logical consistency with rational agency; agents can be rational via strategic commitment without preference ordering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.