Skin in the Game as a Required Heuristic for Acting Under Uncertainty

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298292

前幾天Taleb貼出來的論文

在週末讀完,當然Appendix數學部分我還看不懂

是Antifragile裡Skin in the Game的再延伸

這論文最鼓舞或動人的部份是 4.Moral Luck

Consider the case of two equally reckless drivers, only one of which kills a pedestrian. According to Bernard Williams the unlucky driver is morally guilty of something worse than the other driver (namely manslaughter).

Kantians, by contrast, maintain that both drivers would only be liable for
reckless driving. Both views are confused.What we should say is that from the moral point of view, a certain kind of reckless driving is as bad as manslaughter. When a person drives recklessly he takes upon himself the risk of manslaughter and is accordingly responsible for it if it happens, and for opening himself up to it (which is just as bad from a purely ethical point of view) if it doesn’t (see Sandis 2010). Hegel got it right, then when he wrote not only that ‘[t]he laurels of mere willing are dry leaves that never were green’ but also:

We are not only responsible for known characterizations of our actions and their effects but also for those that we ought to be aware of (even if we are not). Our ignorance does not always relieve us of responsibility for things we have done, because others can claim that, as rational beings we should have known what we were doing even if we did not. Such is the knowledge involved in putting other people’s lives at risk with no skin (of our own) in the game

我們不只要對我們行為中已知的後果負責,也要對那些我們注意(即使我們不注意)的負責。 我們的忽略並不總是使我們沒責任,因為別人可以聲稱,以一個理性的人,我們應該知道我們在做的事。……..

Bad luck is no excuse when it could have been reasonably foreseen. Foresight should not be restricted here to a particular event. If I know that 1/1000 actions of type A will have a tragic result it is not acceptable to perform thousands of these actions on the grounds that for each one there is only a probability of 1/1000 that something will go wrong. The greater the potential disaster the smaller the probability has to be for an act that could bring it about to be immoral. There is an inverse symmetry between the acceptable probability of risk and the weight of the potential damage being assessed.

如果事情可以適當預見,壞運氣就不是理由。先見不限制在特定事件。如果我知道某行為有千分之一機率造成悲劇性後果,這行為就不應該重複做千次。 (這裡寫的很怪,應該一次都不應該做吧??) 因為對每個人,都會有千分之一的機率出錯。

 

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s