Morals are Simple Game Theory

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