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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Does Lottery Advertising Exploit Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Markets?Harriet A. Stranahan - 2005 - Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (1):23-35.
Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination.Ulrich Schmidt - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
A Review of the Lottery Paradox.Gregory Wheeler - 2007 - In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr.
The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility.Thomas Kroedel - 2012 - Analysis 72 (1):57-60.
The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence. [REVIEW]James M. Stearns & Shaheen Borna - 1995 - Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1):43 - 51.
Added to index2009-12-01
Total downloads154 ( #30,331 of 2,169,111 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #60,980 of 2,169,111 )
How can I increase my downloads?