From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Dec 01 1998 - 08:06:53 MST
Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com (Dan Clemmensen) writes:
> I'll try hard to restrain my genetically-mandated imperative as a parent
> to immediately hassle you with gratuitous advice. :-) Instead, I'll
> ask for some: What advice can I offer my kids about ethical behaviour?
> I can't tell them to follow the golden rule because God told them to,
> but I'm not really comfortable with "I've got mine, tough luck losers"
> either. Mostly, we go with the concept that helping society as a whole
> is worthwhile because we are going to have to live in it, So being good
> citizens is appropriate in the same sense that not polluting is appropriate.
>
> Other people's answers are appreciated, but I'd really like to hear fom Erin.
This post, combined with some recent discussions (Aleph is currently
undergoing a philosophical renaissance, two members can hardly meet
without starting to discuss values, ethics, epistemology and the
scientific method :-) got me thinking (and simulating). My answer
would be something like this:
It pays to be good. In most situations you can gain more by
cooperating with others than cheating them (often it is even
impossible to get what you want without the help of others), and if
you behave in ways that make others get along with you you are also
more likely to have people who help you if you need it.
The theory of cooperation that has emerged from studies of the
prisoners' dilemma is quite interesting and relevant for all of us. I
think it is a good foundation for thinking about practical ethics. It
also shows that it doesn't pay to be naive - don't be a sucker, don't
continue cooperating with defectors just because you have been told to
cooperate. Cooperate with those who cooperate with you.
Might is right (MIR) doesn't work well. In fact, I even made a simple
model where I tested it against a simple cooperative strategy
(cooperate with other cooperators) and it did worse under a wide
variety of situations (It became a nice little paper I'm going to
publish). MIR has the problem that it only works for the strong, but
anyone can earn well in a cooperative endeavor regardless of coercive
strength, which makes cooperators in the long run better off. This is
of course why dictatorships and other MIR societies doesn't do as well
as democracies and non-MIR societies; a lot of work is wasted on
internal conflict.
The problem is that humans in general aren't as rational as they could
be, and MIR is easy to explain (just use a gun) while coperative
strategies require more thinking, communication and education. Which
is why I think we should introduce young people more to game theory,
the prisoners' dilemma and the theory of cooperation.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:52 MST