Morals are Simple 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.