From: Daniel Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 14 1998 - 18:31:17 MDT
On 14 Jul 1998, Felix Ungman wrote:
> Not true, if you would keep silent and I would defect, you would be
> even worse off than if we both defect. Now, would you you really
> trust me to keep silent? Just tell me, and I'd be delighted to play :-)
We begin by presuming that the rational action is the action which results
in optimal consequences. Both egoism and utilitarianism agree on this;
they just disagree over what "optimal" means. We then go on to observe
that an ethical system is rational if and only if it is rational for both
players; if it is rational for me to defect, then it is also rational for
you to defect. Egoism cannot only be rational for you; if it is rational
at all, it is rational for both of us.
If both players defect, both players find themselves worse off than they
would be had they chosen to cooperate. Since egoism demands that both
players defect, despite the fact that its consequences are sub-optimal
compared to utilitarianism, egoism is not rational.
>
> >If we agree that rationality, at least in part, involves doing
> >what is necessary in order to get the optimal consequences (where the
> >"optimal" consequences is determined by one's value system) then egoism
> >dictates that the way to fulfill the ends of egoism is to reject egoism;
> >in other words, it is *not* rational to be an egoist, because it leaves
> >the players worse off than it would be had they been utilitarians.
>
> You're using the word "egoism" in a very simplistic manner here.
> In the real world, the payoff function is a very complex relationship,
> that includes most of the people that you know and even many that you
> don't (in most cases indistinguishable from a utilitarian one).
> On the other hand, if you're a Utilitarian, you're forcing someone
> else's payoff function on me. It's a nice offer, but I think I'll pass.
<sigh> As I've already said many times before, this is true when the game
is iterated, which is most of the time. I'd say utilitarianism and egoism
coincide at least 80% of the time, if not more. However, egoism leaves us
worse off in that remaining 20% region, representing games where you don't
know who your opponent is or in which one or more players will not play
again. Put simply, in a small number of cases, it is good from
the egoistic perspective to hurt others for profit. Since utilitarianism
and egoism agree the rest of the time, and since we are made worse off
when we hurt each other in this way, we should reject egoism and adopt
utilitarianism instead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:21 MST