We don't know that its irrational. If you don't like the other person, you get personal satisfaction from hurting them. The satisfaction of hurting them is worth more to you then the utility of the money you are giving up. Perfectly rational.

That and their relative amount of money is greater. Would I rather have 60% more money than someone or half as much as someone?

I'm not saying it's the best decision but there are rational explanations.

I dislike people who claim it's not in a respondent's self-interest to do this; that it's somehow irrational. Status is relative - as the old saying goes, it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

But that saying, authored by Milton in Paradise Lost, is ascribed to Lucifer/Satan. Not exactly a fountain of wisdom and good judgement. Also, Milton wasn't particularly orthodox, but in conventional Christian theology Satan is not said to rule in Hell- he suffers with the rest of us.

In an absolute sense, though, it would only be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven if the status of a servant in Heaven was worse than that of a ruler in Hell. Status is relative, but not only relative to the other participants in the study - it's relative to the entire population. I'd prefer to get $10 and have one neighbor get $20 than $8 and $5, because the wealth of millions of people establish the price of goods to me, not one person getting a little more. In a world where a million people get $0, I get $10, and someone else gets $20, I'm relatively wealthier than if a million people still got $0, I got $8, and my neighbor got $5.

Yeah, it might be more economically rational to seek to get $8 million if the entire world was going to get $20 million if I didn't take the option, but then there's the old saying "a rising tide lifts all boats..."

> Not exactly a fountain of wisdom and good judgement.

But certainly a font of great insight into base human desire, according to many traditions. It's why "a deal with the Devil" is a trope: the Devil knows exactly what to offer humans in exchange for corruption. So, the GP's quote is apt: an offer to "rule in Hell" vs. "serve in Heaven" is indeed a tempting one for many people.

That's literally Satan explaining his MO in a poem.

I have to say I'm happy to call out your ad hominem there, which makes me the devil's advocate.

Do you disagree with Mr Satan's point or do you reject it simply because it comes from him?

To elaborate, it's Satan's MO as described by a person. Since ipso facto, Satan, conceptually described by a person, acts solely against each individual's well-being, the poem is meant to describe this reasoning as detrimental to the individual.

So to respond to your question, I do disagree with "Satan's" point.

It is clearly in the interest of an individual to keep all of what they are given, rather than to spend a portion simply to lower the portion given to another.

Along the same train of thought, I would say, "The least of us can achieve greater heights when lifting each other up, than the greatest of us can by pushing each other down."

Quote aside, I think you're right. America was founded on certain principles of equality, because that makes for a better society. For example, titles and aristocracy are banned in the Constitution. It's better to avoid making second-class citizens.

> America was founded on certain principles of equality

Very limited principles of equality. Slavery, natives, women, unlanded peasants...

That's true, but it's also true that we've worked to reduce those inequalities instead of pretending that they don't really hurt anybody.

When I read this, I just imagine John Nash spinning in his grave.