Thanks! I think the “stochastic dominance + background uncertainty” decision criterion makes two claims about muggings:
If the mugging is not too Pascallian, it stochastically dominates “safe” options, which is a pretty strong argument for accepting it (and probably agrees with what an expected value calculation would dictate)
If it is too Pascallian, neither it nor the safe option stochastically dominates, giving a principled reason for rejecting it
The hope is that your example would fall under case (2), but of course this depends on a bunch of particular assumptions about the background uncertainty.
Thanks! I think the “stochastic dominance + background uncertainty” decision criterion makes two claims about muggings:
If the mugging is not too Pascallian, it stochastically dominates “safe” options, which is a pretty strong argument for accepting it (and probably agrees with what an expected value calculation would dictate)
If it is too Pascallian, neither it nor the safe option stochastically dominates, giving a principled reason for rejecting it
The hope is that your example would fall under case (2), but of course this depends on a bunch of particular assumptions about the background uncertainty.