Morals are Simple Game Theory

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

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

That's what I was thinking.lol
Shooby

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

[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]

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.

[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.

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

[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.