|Abstract||There are many conceivable circumstances in which some people have to be sacrificed in order to give others a chance to survive. The fair and rational method of selection is a lottery with equal chances. But why should losers comply, when they have nothing to lose in a war of all against all? A novel solution to this Compliance Problem is proposed. The lottery must be made self-enforcing by making the lots themselves the means of enforcement of the outcome. This way no external authority is needed to make the losers’ compliance rational both ex ante and ex post. A fairly realistic concrete scenario is sketched to show that the solution could be made to work in practice, particularly since making it work is in everyone’s enlightened self-interest in the circumstances.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Harriet A. Stranahan (2005). Does Lottery Advertising Exploit Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Markets? Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (1):23-35.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Peter Baumann (2004). Lotteries and Contexts. Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):415 - 428.
I. Douven (2012). The Sequential Lottery Paradox. Analysis 72 (1):55-57.
Gregory Wheeler (2007). A Review of the Lottery Paradox. [REVIEW] In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr.
Thomas Kroedel (2012). The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility. Analysis 72 (1):57-60.
James M. Stearns & Shaheen Borna (1995). The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1):43 - 51.
Sharon Ryan (1996). The Epistemic Virtues of Consistency. Synthese 109 (2):121-141.
Added to index2009-12-01
Total downloads48 ( #22,326 of 548,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #4,457 of 548,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?