A criminal says to a judge "If you were a criminal in my situation, you wouldn't want to be jailed. So you can't consistently hold that your ought to jail me." The criminal is
A criminal says to a judge "If you were a criminal in my situation, you wouldn't want to be jailed. So you can't consistently hold that your ought to jail me." The criminal is
To test the judge's present consistency, we need the second form -- the one about her present desire about how she be treated in a hypothetical case.
But there's another problem with the criminal's reasoning.
A criminal says to a judge "If you were a criminal in my situation, you wouldn't want to be jailed. So you can't consistently hold that your ought to jail me." The criminal is
The judge has to desire some action to be done regardless of where she imagines herself in the situation.
But there's another problem with the criminal's reasoning.
A criminal says to a judge "If you were a criminal in my situation, you wouldn't want to be jailed. So you can't consistently hold that your ought to jail me." The criminal is
The judge must make a decision that she can desire to be followed regardless of where she considers herself in the situation (as judge, criminal, past victim, or future victim). If she does this, she'll presumably desire that criminals be put in jail -- and thus that if she were a criminal then she'd be put in jail.