Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories [Archive]

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral. Even more interesting, you did it by ignoring the assumption of universal morality that allowed you to define making value judgments for another as immoral.

Scott

PS Neither Utilitarianism nor ethics in general require someone to make value judgments for another. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you meant making value judgments about another.

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 05:02 PM

*Implementing* utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another.

Better?

12-15-2005, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the cooperating prisoner (in the prisoner's dilemma) being altruistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post on clarity. First off, there's not a/one "cooperating prisoner" in the prisoner's dilemma. There are two prisoners and four possible outcomes based upon each prisoner's choice of whether to cooperate. Second, even if you discuss the situation in terms of both prisoners and all four possibilities, it does not provide a counter-argument to Utilitarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your post on Clarity... and liked it. But, I'm unclear as to what you are saying in this post.

I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't.

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
*Implementing* utilitarianism requires someone to make value judgements for another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legislating any ethical theory requires us to make value judgments for each other, but that is the nature of law, not morality.

Scott

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Utilitarianism is oppressive, and oppression is wrong, because it involves making value judgments about each other, then all of ethics is oppressive.

Scott

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does); you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

Scott

PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Utilitarianism is oppressive, and oppression is wrong, because it involves making value judgments about each other, then all of ethics is oppressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making judgments *about* one another is different than making judgements *for* one another. If I decide you're a scumbag, it doesn't really impact you. If I decide you need to spend a portion of your money on something you don't really want, and then I force you to do so with threat of force, that does impact you.

Implementing utilitarianism requires a central decsion-maker who A) determines maximal utility distribution and B) carries out actions needed to achieve that distribution. The oppression is in part B.

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Making judgments *about* one another is different than making judgements *for* one another. If I decide you're a scumbag, it doesn't really impact you. If I decide you need to spend a portion of your money on something you don't really want, and then I force you to do so with threat of force, that does impact you.

Implementing utilitarianism requires a central decsion-maker who A) determines maximal utility distribution and B) carries out actions needed to achieve that distribution. The oppression is in part B.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are still conflating morality with legality, and doing it selectively for Utilitarianism alone.

Scott

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 06:00 PM

I'm not concerned with legality at all. It doesn't matter to me if there is legislation backing a utilitarian system or not, it's still oppressive.

I think lots of other systems are oppressive, too. It just happens that Utilitarianism got brought up here.

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 06:10 PM

Would you please change your avatar to the album cover of Pink Floyd's The Wall. I will repeat this one last time . . . you are conflating morality with legality. There is absolutely nothing in Utilitarianism that requires me to make value judgments for you. If you want to buy a Dell 2001fp instead of feeding the homeless, then yes, a Utilitarian could claim you are acting immorally. However, he cannot force you to feed the homeless instead.

Scott

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 06:15 PM

Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two types of implementation for a moral theory. The first is to personally subscribe to it, to judge own's actions according to that value system. The second is to legistlate it, to force others to obey it. The latter is not a part of Utilitarianism, or of any philosophical system. I said that you are conflating morality and legality because you intend only the legal definition of implementation, but refuse to let go of the moral definition of implementation.

Scott

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 06:38 PM

Forcing it on others (which many people advocate, implicitly or explicitly) is oppressive.

Talking about it, or using it as a means for making your own decisions, is not oppressive.

The theory itself, obviously, is not oppressive. The "pure" form of it may not be oppressive. Using utilitarianism for a basis of policy is oppressive.

Your "moral implementation" is a trivial case (in that any decisions you make for yourself that don't get imposed on others cannot be aggressive) and clearly not what I was talking about.

12-15-2005, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does);

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I asked my rhetorical question. I was assuming that you didn't think that a cooperating prisoner was being altruistic. But, now I see that you DO think that. I don't. I guess we have different understandings of altruism.

Perhaps I should have stated that I'm referring to an iterated prisoner's dilemma -- where the "tit for tat" strategy is being used. In this way, the prisoners realize or "learn" that they will be happiest if they cooperate and not defect. Thus, their motivation is to help themselves, NOT the other prisoner -- this is why it's not altruism.

[ QUOTE ]
you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way I just desribed the Prisoner's dilemma not requiring altruism. That is a simpler scenario, and we disagree on that, so I'll stick with that for now.

[ QUOTE ]
PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other prisoner. I'm just referencing two people playing a "game". I can describe the scenario in detail if you wish, but it's a common problem, so I thought most people would be familiar with it.

12-15-2005, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Using utilitarianism for a basis of policy is oppressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any policy that forces someone to do or not do something could be seen as oppressive. Even the very basic: "don't steal". Who has the right to tell me what I do and don't own? I think I own the world, and everything in it. Are you going to force me to let you have some of my stuff? That's oppression.

tylerdurden

12-15-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any policy that forces someone to do or not do something could be seen as oppressive. Even the very basic: "don't steal". Who has the right to tell me what I do and don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real owner.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I own the world, and everything in it. Are you going to force me to let you have some of my stuff? That's oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

12-15-2005, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any policy that forces someone to do or not do something could be seen as oppressive. Even the very basic: "don't steal". Who has the right to tell me what I do and don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is??

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I own the world, and everything in it. Are you going to force me to let you have some of my stuff? That's oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try refuting me. So, who gets to decide who owns what? Take our 1000-person island... who owns it? I say I do. And who are you to oppress me by taking my property?

Scotch78

12-15-2005, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

Scott

12-16-2005, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And both are oppression. So, property rights are gained by oppression. So, now that we are all oppressed, perhaps we should arrange some agreements so that we can be happy?

tylerdurden

12-16-2005, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically the statist argument. Unfortunately, decree isn't sufficient to claim a legitimate property right. Nice try, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try refuting me. So, who gets to decide who owns what? Take our 1000-person island... who owns it? I say I do. And who are you to oppress me by taking my property?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, decree is not a legitimate method of acquiring property. It is used (by states, often) as a method of gaining control of property, but it does not confer a legitimate property right.

tylerdurden

12-16-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about force? Those are the only two methods I know of for the origination of land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Force is a method of gaining *control* of property. It does not, however give you a property right.

Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right. You also can mix your labor with unowned materials, and obtain a property right in the finished product. Homesteading of land is a way of origination property rights in land.

You can use decree, conquest, or eminent domain (a sort of combination of decree and conquest) to obtain "normative control" of property. That's not the same as legitimately owning it.

tylerdurden

12-16-2005, 12:28 AM

Note also, the logical conclusion of this is that states cannot ever legitimately own property, since a state cannot work the land except with either slave labor or by paying for labor (or by paying for the land directly) with stolen property (taxes).

Scotch78

12-16-2005, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property

[/ QUOTE ]

And the person who you obtain the property from, please tell me how they obtained it without using force or decree.

Scott

tylerdurden

12-16-2005, 02:36 AM

Read the next sentence.

12-16-2005, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own the world -- that includes you, and your labor. What right do you have to think that you own yourself? Who is oppressing me by taking my right to own you away?

So, the 1000-peson island... nobody owns anything. The first person to work the land, owns it? How much work is required? And who gets to decide 1) the rule that whoever works on the land now owns it, and 2) the quantity/quality of work that is sufficient for ownership to be bestowed to that person?

(I'm crossing my fingers that you won't ignore this question this time.)

12-16-2005, 05:37 PM

Scotch: I hope my clarification helped. Can you now explain why you think the Prisoner in the dilemma is acting altruistically by cooperating?

tylerdurden

12-16-2005, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I own the world -- that includes you, and your labor. What right do you have to think that you own yourself? Who is oppressing me by taking my right to own you away?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. As long as you refuse to differentiate between "control" and "rights" there's no point in continuing, because that's the entire issue - that they aren't the same.

If you want me to admit that a big guy with a big club can beat up some smaller guy that doesn't have a club, well, I can't argue with that. If you want to aruge that the big guy is justified in doing so, then I'm willing to talk. As it stands now you are basically saying "can" is interchangable with "may".

Scotch78

12-16-2005, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Scotch: I hope my clarification helped. Can you now explain why you think the Prisoner in the dilemma is acting altruistically by cooperating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. When I said that the prisoner's dilemma requires altruism, I meant that choosing to cooperate from altruism is the theoretical solution to the dilemma, not that the prisoner is being altruistic because he cooperated. If acting altruistically is A and cooperating is B, then I am saying "A therefore B" and (I think) you are hearing "B therefore A".

As to why altruism solves the dilemma . . . let's assume that I am acting from self-interest, and that my interest is to avoid jail. By cooperating, I retain the possibility for minimum punishment, but by confessing I prevent the possibility of maximum punishment. The 'dilemma' arises because I want both but can only choose one.

Now, let's assume that I am acting from altruism, that I want you to serve as little time in jail as possible. By cooperating, I both retain the possibility for you to serve the minimum and prevent the possibility of you serving the maximum. I can effectively exercise my will now. Furthermore, if you also act from altruistic motives, then minimum jail time for both of us is insured. However, if one or both of us acts from self-interest, then the outcome is uncertain and a dilemma arises.

Scott

atrifix

12-17-2005, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scotch: I hope my clarification helped. Can you now explain why you think the Prisoner in the dilemma is acting altruistically by cooperating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. When I said that the prisoner's dilemma requires altruism, I meant that choosing to cooperate from altruism is the theoretical solution to the dilemma, not that the prisoner is being altruistic because he cooperated. If acting altruistically is A and cooperating is B, then I am saying "A therefore B" and (I think) you are hearing "B therefore A".

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then the players aren't playing the prisoner's dilemma, they're playing a different game--so you haven't given a solution to the prisoner's dilemma.

There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds. So either one of the assumptions has to go or we have to conclude that players are altruistic.

Borodog

12-17-2005, 01:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn,

I think this "mixing of labor" ala Adam Smith is an antiquated and sloppy way of defining ownership. Labor is actually not required at all. All that is really required is first occupation, i.e. homesteading. "Mixing your labor" with the object can serve as constructive notice of ownership, but it it not sufficient or necessary.

If I pocket a rock while in Antarctica, I haven't "mixed any labor" with it, yet I still own it. If I "mix my labor" with lumber stolen from my neighbor's land to fashion a chair, I don't own it.

The "labor mixing" concept lends itself to silly questions like "how much labor is required," etc (as you see).

12-17-2005, 03:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
By cooperating, I retain the possibility for minimum punishment, but by confessing I prevent the possibility of maximum punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's the opposite in the first case. If you defect, you allow for minimum punishment (if the other prisoner cooperates). That's the dilemma -- you have the possibility for minimum punishment by defecting, but in an iterated dilemma, a "tit for tat" cooperation is the best strategy.

12-17-2005, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's rational self-interest.

[ QUOTE ]
There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If both players are rational, a tit-for-tat strategy (or slightly modified), ensures cooperation on all rounds. That is the rational strategy.

tylerdurden

12-17-2005, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All that is really required is first occupation, i.e. homesteading.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't homestead without investing labor.

[ QUOTE ]
If I pocket a rock while in Antarctica, I haven't "mixed any labor" with it, yet I still own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possession of objects (as opposed to land) requires labor - transport, maintenance, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If I "mix my labor" with lumber stolen from my neighbor's land to fashion a chair, I don't own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I specified that the materials must be unowned (of course, in the case where you add your labor to materials you already own, the product is unambiguously your property).

atrifix

12-17-2005, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's rational self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it's rational self-interest, then both players defect (in the one-shot game), because they both have a dominant strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If both players are rational, a tit-for-tat strategy (or slightly modified), ensures cooperation on all rounds. That is the rational strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if we make the assumptions:
1) the game is finite
2) both players know that the other player is rational (CKR)
3) both players have perfect recall
4) both players are capable of calculating as many steps as the game has iterations
5) both players have perfect information, i.e., they know how many rounds the game will last, etc.

Then the unique equilibrium is the backward induction one where both players defect on all rounds. E.g., since both players will defect on the last round, they know that the other player will defect on the next to last round, so they'll defect on the next to last round, but the other player knows that ... and so on.

Now, I think this result is fairly absurd, but then one of the assumptions has to go. So which one is it?

12-17-2005, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's rational self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it's rational self-interest, then both players defect (in the one-shot game), because they both have a dominant strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about an iterated prisoner's dilemma...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If both players are rational, a tit-for-tat strategy (or slightly modified), ensures cooperation on all rounds. That is the rational strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if we make the assumptions:
1) the game is finite
2) both players know that the other player is rational (CKR)
3) both players have perfect recall
4) both players are capable of calculating as many steps as the game has iterations
5) both players have perfect information, i.e., they know how many rounds the game will last, etc.

Then the unique equilibrium is the backward induction one where both players defect on all rounds. E.g., since both players will defect on the last round, they know that the other player will defect on the next to last round, so they'll defect on the next to last round, but the other player knows that ... and so on.

Now, I think this result is fairly absurd, but then one of the assumptions has to go. So which one is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think #5 is incorrect, they don't know when the game is going to end. However, even if they did, if they were both rational, then they would cooperate every round. This is especially true if they will be playing multiple games with multiple other people, all of whom know how each other have played in previous games. The best strategy is a tit-for-tat, and knowing this, it is best to cooperate. A constant defector may fair a smidgeon better than the tit-for-tat player in one game (since on the first round, the defector will gain more than the cooperator), but when playing multiple games, the defector will end up costing himself a lot -- as everyone else will soon be defecting against him, but cooperating with those that are cooperating -- thus, the cooperators will be gaining more than the defector.

Anyway, even in a single game, the defector will know that the tit-for-tat player will defect on every round after the first if the defector defects on the first round. However, if he cooperates on the first round, then he will gain more on subsequent rounds, and thus will maximize his gain over the course of the game. This is the most rational play that both can make.

atrifix

12-18-2005, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think #5 is incorrect, they don't know when the game is going to end.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMHO, if we are talking about real-life situations, then all of the assumptions are strictly false, except perhaps #1. I.e., players do not behave rationally, they do not have CKR, perfect information/recall, etc. Some, like perfect recall, may be approximately true, but "approximately true" means "literally false". I think the interesting thing is trying to create a model that can predict behavior, though, and for the model, we'll have to make certain assumptions that are literally false.

[ QUOTE ]
However, even if they did, if they were both rational, then they would cooperate every round. This is especially true if they will be playing multiple games with multiple other people, all of whom know how each other have played in previous games. The best strategy is a tit-for-tat, and knowing this, it is best to cooperate. A constant defector may fair a smidgeon better than the tit-for-tat player in one game (since on the first round, the defector will gain more than the cooperator), but when playing multiple games, the defector will end up costing himself a lot -- as everyone else will soon be defecting against him, but cooperating with those that are cooperating -- thus, the cooperators will be gaining more than the defector.

Anyway, even in a single game, the defector will know that the tit-for-tat player will defect on every round after the first if the defector defects on the first round. However, if he cooperates on the first round, then he will gain more on subsequent rounds, and thus will maximize his gain over the course of the game. This is the most rational play that both can make.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our definition of rationality includes not playing dominated strategies, then this is not really correct. I suppose we could have an alternative definition of rationality that doesn't include not playing dominated strategies, but I'm not sure what that would be.

It's true that TFT is strictly dominated by always defecting (ALL D), but more importantly, it's strictly dominated by strategy TFT-1, e.g., TFT until last round, then defect. Now if all the assumptions hold, then no one will play TFT, because they'd do better to play TFT-1. Similarly, both players know that they're rational, they know that TFT won't be played. Since both players realize that TFT-1 is dominated by TFT-2, they both know that they won't play TFT-1...and so on. Hence if all the assumptions hold they'll defect on every round.

12-18-2005, 04:14 PM

By "rational strategy", I mean one that results in the best outcome for the person (most utility, less jail time, etc.) With your "rational strategy" of ALL-Defect, the person is almost minimizing his utility. That's not rational. Yes, it "beats" the TFT guy, but that's not the goal. The goal is to maximize your own utility/happiness, not "beat the other guy".

Your TFT-1, TFT-2, ... scenario will not be played out by the rational person. Again, the rational person knows that if he defects on the next to last round, the TFT guy will defect on the last round, thus the next-to-last-round defectgor ends up not maximizing his utility, SO he will NOT defect on the next-to-last round. They both might defect on the last round, unless there will be multiple games played with multiple people, and they know you defected on the last round -- there will be retribution to pay -- as no game is really "in a bubble", and previous games will affect subsequent games. Again, maximization strategy is to cooperate -- and use TFT to communicate your strategy.

atrifix

12-18-2005, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your TFT-1, TFT-2, ... scenario will not be played out by the rational person. Again, the rational person knows that if he defects on the next to last round, the TFT guy will defect on the last round, thus the next-to-last-round defectgor ends up not maximizing his utility, SO he will NOT defect on the next-to-last round.

[/ QUOTE ]
But in this case, the TFT player plays irrationally, which contradicts our assumption that both players are rational. The TFT player does not seek to maximize his utility on the last round, as he could do better by playing TFT-1. Both players are rational, so TFT will not be played. Now, by invoking CKR, we can also see that TFT-1 will not be played, and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
They both might defect on the last round, unless there will be multiple games played with multiple people, and they know you defected on the last round -- there will be retribution to pay -- as no game is really "in a bubble", and previous games will affect subsequent games.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is more like a denial of perfect information. If the payoffs, strategies, length of the game, etc. are known beforehand, then both players can employ backward induction.

As long as all the assumptions hold, you won't play against a variety of players (since strategies like TFT are irrational), you'll only play against ALL D, so you can't do any better than ALL D.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, maximization strategy is to cooperate -- and use TFT to communicate your strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the Pareto-optimal strategy is to cooperate. That is, we have a paradox that is similar to the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma--both players, by acting rationally, end up in a situation that is worse for everyone.

atrifix

12-18-2005, 05:17 PM

Another way of framing this: suppose that player A cooperates in round t-1. Player B notes this. Since in the 1-round game defection strictly dominates cooperation, A can only be rational if he believes that B can be induced to cooperate in round t, which would be irrational. Since B is rational and A knows this, A cannot be rational.

Suppose A cooperates in round t-2. He can only be rational if he believes that by cooperating in round t-2 he can induce B to cooperate in either round t-1 or round t. But cooperating in round t is irrational, and cooperating in round t-1 is either irrational, or comes from the belief that cooperation can induce B to cooperate in round t, so cooperating in round t-2 is irrational, and so on.

12-18-2005, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original post said that utilitarianism was oppressive; it said nothing about implementing it.

tylerdurden

12-18-2005, 08:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original post said that utilitarianism was oppressive; it said nothing about implementing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people say things like "slavery is oppressive" without mentioning "implementing" it.

12-19-2005, 01:22 AM

Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility. It is not rational to have a strategy that does not maximize utility. TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played). This has been played out in real world multi-game iterative scenarios... TFT won. I guarantee you that if we have a multi-game contest, and I play TFT, and you play All-D, then I will end up with more utility than you (as long as there is at least one other TFT (or non All-D) player. Which, there should be, because if they also play TFT, we will both maximize utility. The only way I don't win, is if everyone else is irrational.

atrifix

12-19-2005, 01:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility. It is not rational to have a strategy that does not maximize utility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but our goal is to maximize utility given certain constraints. It can be rational not to play Pareto-optimal strategies, as it is in the one-shot game.
[ QUOTE ]
TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played).

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with this, then surely you can see that if both players know this, they will also defect in the next to last round? If both players are rational (and know the other is rational), they will both defect in the last round, because they do strictly better. This is true regardless of what happens in the next to last round. Thus the outcome of the next to last round doesn't matter in terms of the last round, because both players will defect at that point. So the players would do strictly better to defect in the next to last round.
[ QUOTE ]
This has been played out in real world multi-game iterative scenarios... TFT won.I guarantee you that if we have a multi-game contest, and I play TFT, and you play All-D, then I will end up with more utility than you (as long as there is at least one other TFT (or non All-D) player. Which, there should be, because if they also play TFT, we will both maximize utility. The only way I don't win, is if everyone else is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]It's true that TFT won Axelrod's tournaments (I think 7/8), but that doesn't prove that it's rational. First of all, Axelrod's tournament didn't have a definite number of rounds known in advance, so assumption #5 was not applicable. More importantly, consider the one-shot game. If we run tournaments, two players who always cooperate will do strictly better than two players who always defect. But if we agree that defecting is the rational strategy, then the players who cooperate cannot be rational, despite the fact that they beat the other two players. Or, consider this (analagous to Newcomb's problem): a player plays completely at random. His opponent cooperates if and only if an accurate predictor of his actions would have predicted that he would cooperate on that round. Cooperating thus does strictly better than defecting, but do we want to say that random play is rational?

12-19-2005, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original post said that utilitarianism was oppressive; it said nothing about implementing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people say things like "slavery is oppressive" without mentioning "implementing" it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP was clearly talking about utilitarianism as a moral theory, and your response did nothing to indicate that you were changing that context to emphasize how the theory is put into practice socially, legally, or otherwise. When people talk about disagreeing with slavery, the discussion is understood to be about the practice of slavery, not some abstract philosophical theory.

tylerdurden

12-19-2005, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's where the problem lies. Even though your goal may not be to dominate, once you start trying to maximize *everyone's* utility, you *have* to dominate to achieve your goal. Unless, of course, everyone agrees and voluntarily does what you think is best, in which case the utilitarian calculation was unnecessary in the first place. It's only needed when people have different ideas of what constitutes satisfaction, and in that case, there must be some centralized decision maker that decides what utility is, how to maximize it, and what actions to impose in order to achieve it. If someone can explain how to do that without oppression, I'm ready to hear it.

So in a strict sence, the statement "utilitarianism is oppressive" may be untrue, in that if you use utilitarianism as a personal policy and don't use it to make decision that are imposed on others, it isn't oppressive. Of course, in that case, you're really practicing anarcho-capitalism - each actor seeks to maximize his own satisfaction, but can't aggressively impose on others.

Utilitarianism isn't really utilitarianism if only applied to the self.

12-19-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played).

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with this, then surely you can see that if both players know this, they will also defect in the next to last round?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if 1) they don't know how many rounds are in the game (which is why I disagreed with your #5 assumption earlier), or 2) they will be playing multiple games (thus, making it as if there was no known ending to the game).

12-19-2005, 02:56 PM

I disagree with your criteria for determining property rights. Are you going to force your belief on me? That's oppression.

tylerdurden

12-19-2005, 03:01 PM

I'm not going to force you to believe anything. However, if you try to aggress against me, I'll respond with force. As long as you stay off my property and don't interfere in anything I'm doing, I don't really care if you don't believe in property rights, mathematics, or gravity. Enjoy.

atrifix

12-19-2005, 03:33 PM

Okay, this is a possible way of solving the paradox. After all, we can reject any of the assumptions, and it seems like in real-life situations information is definitely partial. I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd argue that there are certain situations where assumption #5 applies that you're still going to want to maintain that it's rational for people to cooperate, so one of the other assumptions must go as well. Consider this quasi-centipede game: on each round, we play a simultaneous-move prisoner's dilemma. Defecting when the other player cooperates pays (5,0), both defecting pays (1,1), and both cooperating adds 3 to each player's payoffs and keeps the game going another round. The game lasts for a finite number of rounds t (say t=3000). Now, if both players cooperate every round, their payoffs are (3004,3004), but in spite of this, there is a unique equilibrium where both players defect on the first round and get (1,1). I suppose that we could maintain that defecting on the first round is the rational play, but that seems pretty counterintuitive.

12-19-2005, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to force you to believe anything. However, if you try to aggress against me, I'll respond with force. As long as you stay off my property and don't interfere in anything I'm doing, I don't really care if you don't believe in property rights

[/ QUOTE ]

You ARE using force to make me believe (or behave as if I believed) in your idea/theory of property rights. I think you have my property. What gives you the right to forcefully keep what is rightfully mine?

tylerdurden

12-19-2005, 05:13 PM

I'm not using force to make you believe anything. I'm using force to repel your initiation of aggression.

Can you provide any justification for your "decree" theory of property rights? I'm eager to hear your logic. Maybe you're right, you really are the legitimate owner of the entire earth. I'm open to being convinced.

12-19-2005, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not using force to make you believe anything. I'm using force to repel your initiation of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to get what is rightfully mine... You are the aggressor and thief.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide any justification for your "decree" theory of property rights? I'm eager to hear your logic. Maybe you're right, you really are the legitimate owner of the entire earth. I'm open to being convinced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

tylerdurden

12-19-2005, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it sounds like we have a perfectly equal model for property rights. You claim that someone else owned the property and transferred it to you. I'm happy to honor such voluntary agreements between parties. In that case, show me the documentation, the contract between your predecessor and God. That should clear this matter up pretty quickly.

12-19-2005, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it sounds like we have a perfectly equal model for property rights. You claim that someone else owned the property and transferred it to you. I'm happy to honor such voluntary agreements between parties. In that case, show me the documentation, the contract between your predecessor and God. That should clear this matter up pretty quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contracts are for capitalists -- God gave me a birthmark indicating I'm the righful heir to the earth. You didn't answer my question. How are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights? What right do you have to claim that you own part of the earth?

tylerdurden

12-19-2005, 06:04 PM

Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

Your contract seems to be missing God's signature. Bummer for you.

tylerdurden

12-19-2005, 06:07 PM

Wow, two can play the "mindlessly repeat something over and over while ignoring the other guy" game. OK, now that I've convinced myself that it's possible, I'll let you continue on your own. Enjoy.

12-19-2005, 11:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet mother of Jesus. You finally said it. Agreement. That's what hmkpoker said earlier... and that's what I think too. This has been very enjoyable. I hope you enjoyed it too.

tylerdurden

12-20-2005, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet mother of Jesus. You finally said it. Agreement. That's what hmkpoker said earlier... and that's what I think too. This has been very enjoyable. I hope you enjoyed it too.

[/ QUOTE ]a

Huh? Have I missed something? I don't see anywhere in this thread where you've mentioned contracts or voluntary cooperation other than to say "contracts are for capitalists." Likewise, I haven't seen anywhere where I've said anything incompatible with the concept of voluntary cooperation.

12-20-2005, 04:00 PM

pvn -

I kinda mixed 3 different conversations/threads into one -- but they were related (at least in my mind). I followed up here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=3&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4183029&page=0&fpart=3&v c=1)

You probably didn't mean it as such -- but I took what you said to mean that we get our (property) rights by voluntarily cooperating or "agreement". That's where all rights and subsequently all laws get their legitimacy. Well, either that or force -- but "force" wouldn't be legitimate according to the voluntary cooperation perspective.

So, we all agreed to have certain laws to protect the rights that we have agreed on. If you don't like the laws, then you have to get us to change our agreements, or break the agreement and reap the consequences, or get a new group of people to make agreements with.

tylerdurden

12-20-2005, 04:25 PM

No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

12-20-2005, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the majority objects, then it does. At least in a democracy. That's why eminent domain laws are legitimate. But, you probably don't think they are. If not, you disagree with the majority...

tylerdurden

12-20-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the majority objects, then it does. At least in a democracy. That's why eminent domain laws are legitimate. But, you probably don't think they are. If not, you disagree with the majority...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If the majority thinks that the earth is flat, is the earth flat?

12-20-2005, 09:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the majority objects, then it does. At least in a democracy. That's why eminent domain laws are legitimate. But, you probably don't think they are. If not, you disagree with the majority...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If the majority thinks that the earth is flat, is the earth flat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that human rights are scientifically determinable? This I'd like to hear.

hashi92

12-20-2005, 09:59 PM

we do not allow siblings to marry because of the risk of birth defects.

tylerdurden

12-20-2005, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that human rights are scientifically determinable? This I'd like to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Human rights follow logically from property rights, which follow logically from self-ownership, which is self-evident.

If you don't own yourself, how can you engage in debate? How can you do research, examine evidence, formulate opinions, and present them? How can the one you are debating listen to your arguments, consider them freely, and accept or reject your arguments if he doesn't have self-ownership?

12-21-2005, 12:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the majority thinks that the earth is flat, is the earth flat?

[/ QUOTE ]Are you saying that human rights are scientifically determinable? This I'd like to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Human rights follow logically from property rights, which follow logically from self-ownership, which is self-evident.

If you don't own yourself, how can you engage in debate? How can you do research, examine evidence, formulate opinions, and present them? How can the one you are debating listen to your arguments, consider them freely, and accept or reject your arguments if he doesn't have self-ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science & Philosophy are not the same thing. You are a bit confused. Do you see how the earth being flat is something that can be disproven using science, but that "self-evident property rights" can't?

I sure hope so.

Anyway, it's funny that you think your philosophy is fact, and not up for debate, therefore you get to dictate what laws are oppressive and which aren't. Do you see why this is absurd? Probably not.

tylerdurden

12-21-2005, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Science & Philosophy are not the same thing. You are a bit confused. Do you see how the earth being flat is something that can be disproven using science, but that "self-evident property rights" can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, like all natural entities, has a set of properties - a "nature". One can determine the nature of, oxygen, or fungus, or an oak tree, through scientific principles. Man is no different.

The nature of man is to make decisions and then act. This process includes observation of his environment, goal setting, and advancement/betterment. It is important to note that man can only act as an individual. Interference with man's thinking and acting, therefore, is "antihuman".

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, it's funny that you think your philosophy is fact, and not up for debate, therefore you get to dictate what laws are oppressive and which aren't. Do you see why this is absurd? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get to dictate anything, any more than I get to dictate the shape of the earth.

12-21-2005, 10:28 AM

I didn't know anarcho-capitalism was a religion. Good to know.

imported_luckyme

12-21-2005, 11:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
we do not allow siblings to marry because of the risk of birth defects.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a couple that can't conceive would be allowed to marry?

luckyme

siegfriedandroy

12-21-2005, 12:05 PM

this is an interesting exchange that doesnt seem to really solve anything. and utilitarianism indeed sucks. pvwhatever is right

jthegreat

12-21-2005, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know anarcho-capitalism was a religion. Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm and hyperbole are not arguments, Kip. Address pvn's point.

Is psychology science? If not, why not? What about sociology or economics? Is it not possible to study human biology and behavior in order to determine why humans act the way they do?

12-21-2005, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know anarcho-capitalism was a religion. Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm and hyperbole are not arguments, Kip. Address pvn's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, but it feels like I'm talking to NotReady. And philosophy is not science. Psychology can be, depends on what is studied and how. Anyway, we digress. The "nature of man is to make decisions and act" is a philosophical statement. "The earth is round" is a scientific one. Anyway, I'm bored with this conversation. I would really like to know how an anarcho-capitalist thinks that property rights are somehow undisiputable, but other laws in a democracy are not.

I did mention eminenent domain laws... but never got a response on that. Are they oppressive, immoral or against nature or something?

jthegreat

12-21-2005, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The "nature of man is to make decisions and act" is a philosophical statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's a scientific fact. If you don't understand why, you should rethink your definition of science.

12-21-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "nature of man is to make decisions and act" is a philosophical statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's a scientific fact. If you don't understand why, you should rethink your definition of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reread what he wrote. It's ambiguous how he's using the term "nature". It sounded philosophical, but I can see how he may just be describing an observation of humans -- that we "make decisions" and then act. Although the "making decisisons" part could be a philosophical conversation -- we've already had that, though.

In either case, using that to somehow claim certain property rights are "natural" -- is a philosophical jump. And one that he think is undisputable, apparantly. Much like a religious zealot would.

jthegreat

12-21-2005, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In either case, using that to somehow claim certain property rights are "natural" -- is a philosophical jump. And one that he think is undisputable, apparantly. Much like a religious zealot would.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems so because he's not explaining every step in-between. That's a valid point. But saying that human nature can't be studied scientifically is incorrect.

atrifix

12-21-2005, 09:27 PM

I hope you weren't bored with our conversation.

My opinion is that you get the most interesting results by assuming that most, but not all, people are rational and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality.

12-22-2005, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In either case, using that to somehow claim certain property rights are "natural" -- is a philosophical jump. And one that he think is undisputable, apparantly. Much like a religious zealot would.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems so because he's not explaining every step in-between. That's a valid point. But saying that human nature can't be studied scientifically is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

12-22-2005, 01:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you weren't bored with our conversation.

My opinion is that you get the most interesting results by assuming that most, but not all, people are rational and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all bored... I realized we had different assumptions -- even though you spelled them out, and I disagreed. I was comparing the real world with a game, so a lot of the "game" assumptions wouldn't apply. And, therefore, the analogy isn't perfect. So, our conversation was useful. This one, though... not so useful. I'm sure I'm partly to blame, since I know very little about anarcho-capitalism, we must be speaking different languages almost. I get the same Rand-type feeling, that some devout anarcho-capitalists are very religious about their beliefs. But, that's just a first impression. I'll research some more. So, maybe this conversation has been useful after all -- to show me that I need to research to try to understand his point of view.

By the way, can you expound a bit on the "and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality" part of your statement?