Morals are Simple Game Theory

[lehighguy]

Morals a human creations. They are made because we derive satisfaction from living by thier principles. Even if obeying them prevents us from meeting physical wants/needs we gain psycological benefits from believing we follow a moral code. Following a moral code gives someone a sense of ego, like they are different from everyone else. It gives them a sense of self worth. It justifies thier existence. These are powerful psycological incentives to act morally. So it can really be broken down into an equation:

When
Psycological Benefit > Physical Benefit
person A acts morally.

Thus, morality is simple game theory in which the players try to maximize thier own personal gain. What determines "benefit" values. Well that's more complicated. Each person is a sum of thier experiences, genetics, and for the more religous thier soul. As a result some people put a higher value on morals then others. People also devise different moral codes to suit thier different tastes, just as people enjoy different flavors of ice cream. Even a mobster lives by "mob ethics".

Even those we would consider completely immoral, such as serial killers, are acting within the confines of the above game. They have some overwhelming psycological need to kill and they are willing to risk violence, capture, prosecution and a variety of other risks to meet that psycological need.

[txag007]

1) Why do all civilization have the same basic "moral code"?

2) From where does guilt come?

[lehighguy]

1) Because a universal moral code is beneficial for the functioning of civil society.

2) Conditioning. You tell yourself something is right/wrong over and over. You hold to a moral code and tell yourself it differentiates you from others. When you break that code, its like admitting you were lying to yourself the whole kind. You aren't special or different anymore.

We of course have tools to get around guilt when the need is great enough. Rationalization, circumstances, a re-evaluation of moral principles.

[txag007]

So how does each civilization define what is "right" in regard to their moral code?

1) Why do all civilization have the same basic "moral code"?
Because we all have the same basic brain physiology, so our brains process information the same.

2) From where does guilt come? I'm not sure of the physical phenomena(I'm not even sure neurologist have a clue on this yet) but I'm guessing it has something to do with ones actions going against set neural pathways, and the body react against change.

Shooby

[txag007]

"1) Why do all civilization have the same basic "moral code"?
Because we all have the same basic brain physiology, so our brains process information the same."

But opinions vary wildy on matters. How do our brains define what is "right"?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do all civilization have the same basic "moral code"?

[/ QUOTE ]
They do? Have you ever travelled? Or read a history book?

[lehighguy]

Civilization needs certain principles in order to function. For instance, it tells people stealing is wrong because if everyone started stealing then law, order, and the social fabric would break down.

That's what I was thinking.lol
Shooby

I'm pretty sure "right" has alot to do with"what benefits me the most".
Shooby

Lehighguy,

In your last post you touched on the part of the equation you missed in your first post.

There is not just a psychological satisfaction from acting morally. This part of the game is that you hope that by doing it others will do it, and you will all experience a net gain. This is why societies may have similar moral codes. Social norms are created in a Darwinian style. Unsuccesful norms produce bad societies which break down, succesful norms are found in succesful societies, ensuring the norm continues.

[txag007]

"I'm pretty sure "right" has alot to do with'what benefits me the most'."

So something is "right" even if it is cruel, hateful, or tyrannical? The laws of most civilizations don't hold to this.

[lehighguy]

It was in the equation. If you act nice in the hope that people will be nice to you its all part of self interest. Wether that is physical niceness or psycological niceness doesn't matter.

As for wether social norms evolve in a Darwinian style, perhaps true. But not really related to the orginal question.

[lehighguy]

There is no such thing as "right". Morals are made up by people.

This does not necessitate a moraless narcism, but it does require one give up the idea of absolute morality.

[txag007]

"There is no such thing as "right". Morals are made up by people."

Then what distinguishes a good act from an evil one?

[lehighguy]

There are no good or evil acts.

We determine for ourselves what we want to define as good or evil acts, but we do this ourselves not because the acts themselves are inherintly good or evil. It is an act of choice rather then discovery.

We choose how we want to live and how we want to define ourselfs. We take this burden of consciousness upon ourselves because it is what makes us human.

[txag007]

"We determine for ourselves what we want to define as good or evil acts"

If that is true, what keeps chaos from resulting? Wait. I know. You answered that one earlier in this thread:

"Civilization needs certain principles in order to function. For instance, it tells people stealing is wrong because if everyone started stealing then law, order, and the social fabric would break down."

So how does civilization arrive at these principles?

[lehighguy]

"So how does civilization arrive at these principles?"
The Dialectic of History

The key is one of definitions. Did it "arrive at these principles" as if they were a preconcieved destination, or were these principles constructed by man himself through his experiences and conscious thought. The difference has implications.

[txag007]

"The key is one of definitions. Did it "arrive at these principles" as if they were a preconcieved destination, or were these principles constructed by man himself through his experiences and conscious thought. The difference has implications."

So which was it?

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking it

Yeah I cast a vote for morals being a result of an evolution of whole societies and civilisations, since human interaction is classed under cooperation/competition in the way of game theory

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"There is no such thing as "right". Morals are made up by people."

Then what distinguishes a good act from an evil one?

[/ QUOTE ]

A good act for me is one I believe to be right. That's not as tautalogical as it sounds, I find a wallet full of cash, know who it belongs to and could keep the cash without any risk. I may give it back just because I believe its the right thing to do and get a bit of moral pleasure - thats a good act.

A bad act would be keeping the wallet because of greed when it gives me some moral displeasure i.e. I believe its wrong.

This is independent of how the moral feelings came about.


chez

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Morals a[re] human creations.

[/ QUOTE ]

When people say this, to me, it's suggesting that there is never any such thing as intrinsic, logical morality that should guide our actions in our "situation" - the human condition. Otherwise, why make the statement? If we're the only ones on the planet capable of the abstract thought necessary to consider morality, then of course morality has been "created" by us. But maybe discovered is a better word.

[ QUOTE ]
They are made because we derive satisfaction from living by thier principles. Following a moral code gives someone a sense of ego, like they are different from everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that morality is dependent on our gaining satisfaction from it's principles. A person can derive satisfaction from acting morally, and feel differently from others (presumably others not acting morally), but does that have to be the case?

[lehighguy]

The latter, but I believe you were implying the former in your responses. I would like some clarification on your views.

[lehighguy]

Paragraph one:
Discovered is a terrible word. It assumes that there is an preconcieved absolute morality to be discovered rather then human beings making conscious choices. It degrades us to mere animals, foraging for morals the way a rabbit might forage for food. It takes away choice and thought and leaves us only with that "is".

Paragraph 2:
Obviously, I disagree. If you didn't take pleasure in some kind from your actions you wouldn't commit them.

Let's take William Wallace from braveheart as an example. Wallace would rather be tortured to death then see his people enslaved. Even if he is offered a comfortable life and title he turns it down. He makes this choice because the pain of seeing his people enslaved overwhelms his physical desires for safety and comfort. He Can't ignore these moral impulses.

What gives some people extreme moral impulses, that is complicated. Part is genetics, part is experiences, and part is the power of choice we have as a result of our consciousness. It's all about choice. It always will be. We define ourselves by our choices and the value we place on our various actions and principles.

[txag007]

" I would like some clarification on your views. "


I'll get there.

So how did man decide, for instance, that stealing was wrong?

[lehighguy]

"Man" didn't decide anything. Individuals decided things.

Society decided stealing was bad because it destroys the social fabric. We can all benefit if we don't steal. Since not all people would come to that conclusion (they have different incentive schemes)we set up a criminal punishment system and also exerted immense social pressure to compensate for situations were criminal punishment was unlikely.

Of course, this hasn't been perfect. It still occurs. And when you remove the social and criminal prosecution pressures it becomes widespread (like new orleans).

Individuals obey societal norms so long as it benefits to do so. Either because they derive pleasure from being part of something or because there is the threat of repercussion.

[txag007]

"Society decided stealing was bad because it destroys the social fabric. We can all benefit if we don't steal."

How can "destroying the social fabric" be bad if there is no such thing as good and evil acts?

[lehighguy]

Society is a game in which the competitors can communicate with eachother. This allows them to make choices that benefit them as a whole even if they would not make those choices in the absence of communication.

We all benefit from the increased commerce and security that comes from a society without stealing. So we created criminal and social pressures to exert compliance amongst the players. We changed thier incentive schemes to make cooperation more beneficial.

Of course, when those incentive changes break down we find most people's actions change accordingly.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Paragraph one:
Discovered is a terrible word. It assumes that there is an preconcieved absolute morality to be discovered rather then human beings making conscious choices. It degrades us to mere animals, foraging for morals the way a rabbit might forage for food. It takes away choice and thought and leaves us only with that "is".

[/ QUOTE ]

A real simple example: one of my neighbors decides to break into the home of another one of my neighbors, shoots him dead and steals some valuables from his home. Let's say he does this because he's jealous of the nice car he drives and his beautiful wife. And because he gambled away his paycheck and needs some money to buy drugs. There are no other reasons.

I don't believe the morality of this situation is an arbitrary "choice" made by human beings. I believe it is simply, objectively, wrong.

Obviously morality gets a lot more complicated than that, and maybe we are "mere animals" foraging for morals in a sense. But that doesn't take away thought from the equation.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I disagree. If you didn't take pleasure in some kind from your actions you wouldn't commit them.

Let's take William Wallace from braveheart as an example. Wallace would rather be tortured to death then see his people enslaved. Even if he is offered a comfortable life and title he turns it down. He makes this choice because the pain of seeing his people enslaved overwhelms his physical desires for safety and comfort. He Can't ignore these moral impulses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how your example demonstrates that a person must always derive pleasure or satisfaction from following a moral code.

You've never taken any actions that didn't give you pleasure? Never done anything just because you felt it was the right thing to do, even though you'd rather not do it? I don't think it follows that a person will only do the right thing if doing the right thing gives you a certain level of pleasure or satisfaction.

[lehighguy]

1) Then you believe in absolute morality to be discovered by humanity. Explaining why I think this is a bad conclusion and its implications goes beyond the scope of this thread. You'll have to read a lot of modern philosophy for context.

2) Pleasure isn't just physical. It is psycological.
Example: When my dad was out of work he refused to accept welfare. Clearly forgoing a needed physical benefit. However, he clearly derived psycological benefit. He felt proud to stand on his own two feet without help. That pride is worth something, worth alot more then the money he turned down.

If you think something is the right thing to do, and you do it as such, you get to feel like your a good person. Feeling like your a good person is a benefit within itself, and a damn huge one in some cases.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Then you believe in absolute morality to be discovered by humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

To a certain degree, definitely. Do you not agree with my example? But sometimes the right thing to do might not be easy to figure, so whether there is an "absolute morality" all the time, I'm not sure about that.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Pleasure isn't just physical. It is psycological.
Example: When my dad was out of work he refused to accept welfare. Clearly forgoing a needed physical benefit. However, he clearly derived psycological benefit. He felt proud to stand on his own two feet without help. That pride is worth something, worth alot more then the money he turned down.

If you think something is the right thing to do, and you do it as such, you get to feel like your a good person. Feeling like your a good person is a benefit within itself, and a damn huge one in some cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that people derive psychological benefits from acting morally at all (though as an aside, was your father's choice actually a moral one?), but I don't believe that people only act morally when and because it's somehow "+EV" in terms of psychological and physical benefits. This might be true of some people, granted. Going back to your original post, I don't believe that "morality is simple game theory in which the players try to maximize thier own personal gain".

Although it's always possible that in the long run, acting truly morally could maximize your own long run personal gain (depending on what you believe happens when you die), but perhaps not in the way that you mean.

[lehighguy]

1) The man in this case has chosen not to value his neighbors live highly, nor does he value being in the no murder club highly. He has chosen the values he wants to live by. You may choose to condemn him, no one is stoping you. I don't recall saying moral statement are impossible in this framework. However, you as an individual are condemning him, you don't have backup from some absolute morality or god or whatever. Even if you convince all of society he is wrong, you are still only a group of individuals rather then some greater force of truth.

2) I don't see how you can conclude people are making -EV decisions. I see no grounds for that conclusion. Explain the path one might take to arrive at a -EV decision. It seems quite impossible. As soon as the person concludes it's a -EV decision, they won't act on it because of its very nature as -EV.

Imagine a poker game with one round of betting where the players could see eachothers hands. Betting or calling with the inferior hand is clearly -EV, and you won't find a single person that will take that bet. Yet your proposing people do exactly that. It seems absurd.

There is an attempt to agrandize moral actions as though people are being self sacrificial. However, self-sacrifice is impossible. Even those that give up thier lives for a moral crusade are doing what they must do. They have chosen to value whatever they are crusading for highly, so highly they can't live in a world where thier crusade goes unheaded. The psycological needs of the morals we create may even overide our need for life itself, but this is not an act of self sacrifice. It is a logical course of action when one values something higher then thier own life. Living in an immoral world is worse then death to them. Death is the only +EV decision in this case.

And no the afterlife is quite irrelevent to the discussion.

[txag007]

"We all benefit from the increased commerce and security that comes from a society without stealing."

If there is no such thing as "right" and no good and evil acts, how do we know that we benefit from a society without stealing? What makes increased commerce a positive thing? What makes security a positive thing?

[lehighguy]

If your attempting to define any +EV action as moral, I think that was my point in OP.

Consider the following. One nieghbor has wool and the other wood. They also both have guns. They could sit in thier houses trying to shoot eachother to get the others resources, or they could reach an agreement to share resources so they both have warmth and clothing. Clearly the latter is the best option (in most peoples opinion), but does following that course of action make a person moral, or are they simply doing something that is +EV.

Most people define moral actions as a -EV decision simply because it is moral. Such seems a falicy, people can't make -EV moves. It's impossible. As soon as one determines something to be -EV, they will not follow that course of action.

Let us return to the nieghbors. Now let's say only one of them has a gun. However, he doesn't kill the other because he derives some non-material satisfaction from his nieghbor being alive, or he would feel guilty from killing him and the guilt would be overwhelming. In either case, if the man denies himself a physical benefit because of the overwhelming psycological factors that doesn't mean he is making a self sacrifical -EV move because of morality. His moral values are factored into the EV calculation.

[txag007]

Earlier you said that there is no "right". By defining any +EV action as moral, you seem to be saying now that "right" is that which produces the greatest good. Which is it?

[lehighguy]

"Right" as defined in the traditional moral framework is making a -EV decision because it is "moral". I reject that defintion.

Defining "right" as making a +EV decision is what I've attempted to do in OP. If you are making the same definition, I'm not sure where the objection is comming from.

I would further postulate that values (benefits associated with different actions) are not objective numbers set in stone but rather we as humans decide what value to place on things and actions. Perhaps this is where the disagreement comes from. You believe certain actions have set values determined not by man but by some outside force?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
1) The man in this case has chosen not to value his neighbors live highly, nor does he value being in the no murder club highly. He has chosen the values he wants to live by. You may choose to condemn him, no one is stoping you. I don't recall saying moral statement are impossible in this framework. However, you as an individual are condemning him, you don't have backup from some absolute morality or god or whatever. Even if you convince all of society he is wrong, you are still only a group of individuals rather then some greater force of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that I don't "have backup from some absolute morality or god or whatever"?

It seems to me that you are again suggesting that morality, even in a case such as my example, is something subjective, that it is not something that can ever be derived logically. I don't agree.

[ QUOTE ]
2) I don't see how you can conclude people are making -EV decisions. I see no grounds for that conclusion. Explain the path one might take to arrive at a -EV decision. It seems quite impossible. As soon as the person concludes it's a -EV decision, they won't act on it because of its very nature as -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let me put it this way, I think people may sometimes act in ways that will feel "-EV" to them, but perhaps they act in those ways anyway because they feel it's more "+EV" for someone else than it is "-EV" for themselves. And maybe because they feel that acting in such a way encourages others to do the same, in a prisoner's dilemma kind of way that can benefit everyone in the long haul (if everyone is occasionally willing to take some -EV for themselves to give some greater +EV to others, then sometimes we will be the recipients of the +EV from someone else).

Example: You receive a phone call from an acquaintance who is bored and lonely and just wants someone to listen to some of their troubles for a bit. Say that you do feel some small obligation to lend an ear to this person, but not much of one, and in fact, if you made up an excuse not to talk to them, you wouldn't feel overly guilty about it. You'd probably rather watch paint dry for the next half hour than stay on the phone. But maybe sometimes you decide to suck it up and listen for a bit, even though you don't feel that you have an obligation to do so.

When I think about it, I'm not really disputing that people take actions that they only view as "+EV" in some kind of way, just that the nature of that "+EV" isn't always as simple as a sense of ego, worth or satisfaction/pleasure as your initial posts characterized it.

[ QUOTE ]
And no the afterlife is quite irrelevent to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

An afterlife isn't relevent to a discussion about the nature of morality?

[lehighguy]

1) This really goes beyond the scope of this post. Read Nieztche(mispelling likely), Kant, and a host of other modern philosophers. I really couldn't do an arguement against objectivity justice here.

2) You listen to your friend for a reason. If you really didn't care then you wouldn't do it. Maybe you care more then you think you do. Maybe your subconscious cares. Maybe you think about sometime a person hung up on you and guilt takes hold. It really doesn't matter the reason, or collection of reasons, so long as they overide your desire to hang up.

If you do something that "feels" -EV because it's +EV for another you do it because the satisfaction of seeing the other person happy brings you satisfaction, or knowing you did the right thing brings you satisfaction, so the action is actually +EV when you account for those additional inputs.

If you reject the concept of a -EV decision, then it is impossible to say people make -EV decisions because of some kind of moral force. Do they not have control over thier own actions? Do we not have free will? If so, that's a rather distrurbing conclusion.

As for making -EV decisions due to potential future +EV gains from that decision it isn't all that different from a NPV calculation on an investment decision. Let's call the original -EV decision the cost of investment, and the future +EV benefit cashflows. We have some discount rate because we value current pleasure over future pleasure. We discount back the cashflows and then compare that sum to the initial investment. If the NPV of the cashflows is greater then the initial investment, then the decision as a whole is +EV and we make it. If not, we do the opposite.

The afterlife could be seen as a huge +/- EV value at the very end. However, since the existance of the afterlife is so incredibly uncertain (I see no evidence to conclude it exists, and even less to make sweeping judgements of how its governed) we have to use a discount rate approaching infinity to account for the uncertainty. As such, it really doesn't affect our calculations much.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do something that "feels" -EV because it's +EV for another you do it because the satisfaction of seeing the other person happy brings you satisfaction, or knowing you did the right thing brings you satisfaction, so the action is actually +EV when you account for those additional inputs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The action may be +EV when accounting for "additional inputs", but those additional inputs do not have to be "satisfaction", IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]
The afterlife could be seen as a huge +/- EV value at the very end. However, since the existance of the afterlife is so incredibly uncertain (I see no evidence to conclude it exists, and even less to make sweeping judgements of how its governed) we have to use a discount rate approaching infinity to account for the uncertainty. As such, it really doesn't affect our calculations much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say "our calculations", but each individual makes their own "calculations" when deciding how to act, and obviously they all aren't going to discount the possibility of some kind of afterlife in the same way that you do.

[lehighguy]

1) Then what do you propose to substitute for "satisfaction". Surely something has to go there if the equation is going to hold, which you've already agreed to.

2) Well you asked me my opinion of the afterlife, whos opinion we're you expecting.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Then what do you propose to substitute for "satisfaction". Surely something has to go there if the equation is going to hold, which you've already agreed to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily saying that the equation always holds. It's what I said two posts ago. I mentioned a prisoner's dilemma kind of dynamic - I might act in an isolated "-EV" way that is "+EV" for someone else, believing that at other times the reverse may occur and I will be the beneficiary. But it's possible that doing so will actually just leave me with the short end of the stick so to speak. And I may believe that I can't really know whether the EV of my actions is + or -. Or I may believe that the only true possible long run "+EV" for everyone will have to entail individuals being willing to sacrifice short term "EV" from time to time.

Certainly I believe people can take satisfaction in acting in a way that they see as being moral. But I think it's possible to sometimes do things that we somehow asses as being "right" without necessarily gaining all that much satisfaction from doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Well you asked me my opinion of the afterlife, whos opinion we're you expecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wasn't actually specifically asking your opinion of the afterlife. I made a comment in a post, "depending on what you believe happens when you die", but I meant "you" as in anyone, not you personally. So when you said, "And no the afterlife is quite irrelevent to the discussion", I didn't really take it as you giving your opinion, it sounded like you were stating a fact.

[lehighguy]

1) Like I said, I don't believe in a -EV decision. It seems logically impossible. I can't imagine a human that would act that way. I think the perception that people due is based on a failure to incorporate all of the psycoligical factors involved or a misevaluation of values applied to things and actions by an individual. Choosing what we value is the act of choice, our actions are dictated by the values we choose.

Perhaps a more mathematical equation.

(A + B + C) vs. (D + E + F)

If ABC is greater then person will take action one, if DEF is greater person will take action two. The act of choice comes in not between the two actions, but rather what values we assing to the variables. That is what determines which side of the equation is greater, the existence of the equation itself has little to do with the act of choice. Rather, it is pretty meaningless mechanism compared to the much more profound human act of value setting for the variables.

Perceptions of -EV activity in others is most likely a result of failing to incorporate a variable or inability to correctly estimate a variable (especially diffucult when trying to evaluate anothers values).

2) A multi stage EV model was already discussed. If you don't understand it then you'll have to study NPV. I can provide links if you need them.

3) Fair enough. I think Sklansky has made posts about the afterlife before, go there for some more spirited debate.

As stated in my multi stage EV model, and afterlife is just another cash flow. No matter its value it is really no threat to the integrity of the model.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
2) A multi stage EV model was already discussed. If you don't understand it then you'll have to study NPV. I can provide links if you need them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to study NPV, once upon a time I was a Finance major. It's not rocket science.

I'm not trying to get hung up on whether all human morality decisions are "+EV" or not. That's not really the point I was trying to make. One of the points in my first reply to your initial post was simply that "I don't believe that morality is dependent on our gaining satisfaction from it's principles". I believe that it's possible to do something "right" (at cost to myself) without receiving physical benefits, or even corresponding psychological benefits from doing so. You might say that my beliefs really involve my thinking that I will somewhere down the line be "paid back" for doing so, and maybe that is so.

Anyway, this is really all beside the main point of your original post, which seems to be that there is no absolute morality, and all morality is actually just created by humans. We've established that I don't agree with that.

[lehighguy]

1) I'm not sure what model your using then. How do people make decisions. Can you explain it?

2) I see no evidence to support a God/Externally given absolute morality. Moreover, constant use of such mechanisms has cause a great deal of human suffering.

Having to rely on an externality to determine proper actions seems a fundamental degradation of the free will and consciousness of man, relagating him to little more then an animal or a slave, and I see no evidence to reach that conclusion.

[West]

I finally got around to reading a little bit of the rest of this thread and what seems strange to me is that it seems like you see my viewpoint as "anti-free will", but I actually see it in reverse - if man is unable to ever do anything other than what is "+EV" for himself, then how does he have free will? If he doesn't shoot his neighbor, it's because he couldn't, based on his psychological makeup. If he does, it's because he couldn't not do it, because of his psychological makeup. Isn't that what you are saying?

[lehighguy]

As I stated, the equation isn't the important part. You seem to think it is. The variables in the equation of the important part. We can determine what the value of those variables are. The equation is merely the mechanism by which values become actions. The real choice isn't the action itself, but rather assinging value to things which results in an action being taken.

Absolutist morality takes that ability away. Instead of being able to set the variables yourself (determine your own values) they are decided by some outside force. That is why you are futally attempting to suppose a -EV decision. The only way a human can have any choice in your model is by disobeying the equation itself since the variables are decided for him. Focusing on the equation (actions) rather then on the variables (human values derived from our consciousness) is the error.

To the OP,

Here can be found a scientific article published in The Guardian that proposes that morals are a product of evolution. It is largely based on the work of Robert Trivers.
Guardian article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,6000,1557073,00.html)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
As I stated, the equation isn't the important part. You seem to think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Important part of what? No offense, but I don't think there is anything important about your equation. I'm simply asking, if individuals always act in such a way that they perceive as "+EV", do they really have free choice?

[ QUOTE ]
The variables in the equation of the important part. We can determine what the value of those variables are. The equation is merely the mechanism by which values become actions.The real choice isn't the action itself, but rather assigning value to things which results in an action being taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutist morality takes that ability away. Instead of being able to set the variables yourself (determine your own values) they are decided by some outside force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective morality doesn't mean that an individual can't determine his own values - it just means that those values might not be, truly, moral. I think that makes more sense than the point you are apparently trying to make with this thread - that whatever actions an individual decides are of value (even in the case of a serial killer who simply enjoys murder/rape/torture/what have you), should then be defined as moral (which renders the concept meaningless).



-----

Earlier you asked me what other inputs might there be that would make an individual consider an action to be "right", other than some form of satisfaction...fear would be an obvious one.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as "right". Morals are made up by people.

This does not necessitate a moraless narcism, but it does require one give up the idea of absolute morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Right and wrong do not exist outside of a human mind, thus "absolute morality" is an oxymoron.

[benkahuna]

I agree. I describe the situation as such:

All actions are selfish, but not all actions are self-serving.


After I thought about this idea (years ago), it seemed pretty obvious to me that however benevolent anything I would do would be, those actions were what I wanted to do and thus selfish. It came from me trying to be honest without myself about what motivated me.

[lehighguy]

A good summary.