Agent-Regret and Regret Consequentialism
5/22/10, he made the trade. When the original posts were made, 10,000
bitcoin was worth only $41. Today, 10,000 bitcoin is worth $170,000,000.
Hanyecz regrets his decision to trade 10,000 bitcoins for pizza. 10 Is Hanyecz’s
regret fitting? Regret deontologists argue that Hanyecz’s regret is not fitting. This
is because he could not have anticipated or accounted for the fact that bitcoin
would go “to the moon.” He did the best with the information he had at the time.
That is, he made no error in his deliberation. As a result, his regret does not fit in.
By contrast, regret consequentialists argue that Hanyecz’s r egret is fitting. This is
because he lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars. 11 It does not matter that
Hanyecz could not have known bitcoin’s trajectory. He ended up spending
$170,000,000 on pizza. Common sense tells us that if there were ever something
worthy of regret, it would be spending $170,000,000 on dinner at Papa John’s.
Thus, common sense again supports regret consequentialism over regret
deontology.
Bitcoin Pizza Guy teaches us two important lessons about the essence of
agent-regret. First, bad deliberation is not necessary. This is because regret is
fitting even though there is no bad deliberation here. Second, it shows us that a
bad outcome is sufficient for agent-regret to be fitting. This is because a bad
outcome is the only negative feature in this case and regret is still fitting. Thus, a
bad outcome alone is sufficient for regret.
Case 4: Bad Decision/ Bad Outcome
Roulette : You bet and lose all your life savings on one game of roulette. You
regret your decision.
Both regret deontologists and consequentialists agree that your regret is fitting.
10 This is not actually true, but for the sake of argument, I will stipulate that it is. 11 I have never had Papa John’s, but I cannot imagine that one of their large pizzas is worth over 85 million dollars.
Volume VI (2023)
44
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker