Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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.)

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

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

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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".

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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).

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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).

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ 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?