From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 07:59:29 MST
Max M wrote:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > I've been running over this problem, or a superset of it, as a
background
> > job, for years. That is, whether it is actually possible to put values
and
> > ethics on a rational basis.
>
> It is indeed a very interresting question. And I don't believe that
> there can ever be a completely rational ethics system.
>
Me either. I don't think there are moral absolutes, but maybe there are
moral "universals". A universal would not be true for all time or in all
situatuations (it would not be an absolute) but we may safelty be able to
apply it or assume its true for nearly all persons.
Eg.
Persons have a biological predisposition to sociality. A willingness to
cooperate not just to compete comes with the suit.
Persons have a capacity for rationality. And can therefore discuss things
including ethics if they so choose.
Persons necessarily perceive the world from their own subjective viewpoint.
The first thing they value before they learn to value other things is their
life. The dead and insentient value nothing.
> I strongly suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the analysis and
> application of game theory.
Me too. An interesting thing about tit for tat is that it seems that once
one understands it one can benefit by teaching it or showing it to others.
If I can convince a room full of potential players before playing a series
of games, of the merit of tit for tat. That tit for tat has been thoroughly
tested against other alternatives, then when one sits down, I think, one can
expect a higher percentage of in-the-know folk to start with a cooperative
action as their first move 'cause they are using tit for tat too.
Alternatively, if one keeps silent about what they know, or just plays
against those who are not "in the know" the it will take longer for the
successful strategy to propogate as a meme around the group. One has a
better chance of having more cooperative vs competitive first encounters if
the "tit for tat" concept is better understood by the group. There is a meta
effect.
Tit for tat is simple. But the capacity to grasp the principle of it as a
successful algorithm would at least, up to some threshold level, be a
function of intelligence. If one knew more robust and complex (ie. more
generally applicable game theory models -if they exist) and one could teach
them (perhaps relying on the universals above) then perhaps one could
bootstrap oneself and others up to higher levels of cooperation without
reckless niavete or blind faith. This would not guarantee anything. One who
understand tit for tats means of operation can still elect to step out of it
(but would be unlikely to in scenarios where tit for tat is known to be
optimal), but they are less likely to if they know the other knows.
I think this sort of thinking was behind Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
in the cold war. Seems to me we got through 50 years without a global war so
maybe it worked. Or maybe we just got lucky and in 999 other universes we
all died :-)
>
> It is amusing that the strongest religions are those where the ethics
> system acually works in the real world.
I can't agree with this. Christianity is a pretty "strong religion" by most
accounts but many of the christian moral precepts seem ideally designed to
increase the number of "cheek slappers" (turn the other cheek if someone
slaps you on one) and "shirt and cloak freeloaders" (if someone takes your
cloak offer them also your shirt) in the world.
The moral teaching of Jesus are often held up as superior to those in the
old testament. Love one another. Forgive not just 7 times but 77 times 7.
(Gees would these guys take a hiding in tit for tat). The moral message put
out by Jesus is ideal for making martyrs and leaving the world and ones
friends and family living in a higher concentration of well fed predators.
>
> Very often it turns out that these ethics are based on what is also a
> stable system in game theory.
Maybe. Can't think of an example. "Eye for an eye" seems closer to "tit for
tat" than "turn the other cheek".
>
> Something like the strategy called 'Tit for tat' (TFT) "Cooperate on the
> first move and then copy your opponent's last move for all subsequent
> moves." This reminds me strongly of "Do unto others as ..." etc.
>
If A observes B interacting with C using tit for tat, A will know that A
may get one chance to con B and then B will be out for revenge in the next
encounter with A. On the other hand if B applies "do unto others as you, B,
would be done by" or picks up the "forgive 77 times 7" (judge not, that
you, B, not be judged) or the "give them your shirt B, as well as your cloak
model", A will have see that B is a walking free lunch. What makes it worst
for B is even though A would have been happy to cooperate, because A
perceived B with C to be such a born sucker, A may conclude it is better for
A's family and friends (and A) to get B's resources rather than have that
complete rotter D come along and empower himself. B, in "turning the other
cheek mode" is a beacon for predators. As the population of predators
increases A finds more people that A meets are initially interacting
competitively than before.
Gees that lot (above) is probably tangled. Sorry :-)
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:15 MST