A person has an electrical torturing device attached to his body, and gets paid $10,000 for every increase in intensity level. That’s the premise for a philosophy puzzle introduced by Warren Quinn in 1993. On Monday afternoon, professor Sergio Tenenbaum presented his take on the puzzle as part of the Centre for Ethics’ seminar series. The paper, called “Vagueness, Plans, and the Puzzle of the Self-torturer,” was co-authored by professor Diana Raffman.

Back to the self-torturer: according to the orthodox Rational Choice Theory, the self-torturer would prefer to stop at the higher of two consecutive settings. (Since the increments in current are tiny, he can’t distinguish between adjacent settings anyway.) The theory states that choices are rational if they come from a transitive preference over alternative choices.

But the self-torturer can distinguish between settings that are far apart, and he knows there is a setting at which he would experience unbearably excruciating pain. (He knows this because once a week he is allowed to explore the various settings. But afterwards, he has to return to the setting he was at before.)

The self-torturer understandably doesn’t want to live in overwhelming pain, even for a lot of money, so he would also prefer to stop at the lower of two consecutive settings lest he hit the level that would cause too much pain. That’s the crux of the puzzle, and the challenge to Rational Choice Theory.

One of the responses to RCT is that because the self-torturer’s preferences are intransitive, he is irrational and must revise his preferences. Professor Tenenbaum called this response the “hard-nosed solution.” He argued for an unorthodox solution, centred around “non-segmentation.” According to Tenenbaum, a solution satisfies non-segmentation if it permits or mandates that the self-torturer stops at a certain level when facing a series of choices, but always recommends moving to the next level when there’s only one choice.”

The talk, which contained jargon and very fine-grained philosophical arguments, was mostly attended by philosophy students and faculty. A few people without philosophy backgrounds showed up, too. Among them was Ori Barbut, a graduate student in engineering, who said that he appreciated the mental exercise. Barbut added that the event provided students with a great opportunity to learn about a field of study different from their own.

Professor Tenenbaum’s research interests are in ethics, practical reason, and Kant. He is the author of Appearances of the Good (Cambridge UP, 2007).