Morals are Simple Game Theory

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Then what do you propose to substitute for "satisfaction". Surely something has to go there if the equation is going to hold, which you've already agreed to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily saying that the equation always holds. It's what I said two posts ago. I mentioned a prisoner's dilemma kind of dynamic - I might act in an isolated "-EV" way that is "+EV" for someone else, believing that at other times the reverse may occur and I will be the beneficiary. But it's possible that doing so will actually just leave me with the short end of the stick so to speak. And I may believe that I can't really know whether the EV of my actions is + or -. Or I may believe that the only true possible long run "+EV" for everyone will have to entail individuals being willing to sacrifice short term "EV" from time to time.

Certainly I believe people can take satisfaction in acting in a way that they see as being moral. But I think it's possible to sometimes do things that we somehow asses as being "right" without necessarily gaining all that much satisfaction from doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Well you asked me my opinion of the afterlife, whos opinion we're you expecting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wasn't actually specifically asking your opinion of the afterlife. I made a comment in a post, "depending on what you believe happens when you die", but I meant "you" as in anyone, not you personally. So when you said, "And no the afterlife is quite irrelevent to the discussion", I didn't really take it as you giving your opinion, it sounded like you were stating a fact.

[lehighguy]

1) Like I said, I don't believe in a -EV decision. It seems logically impossible. I can't imagine a human that would act that way. I think the perception that people due is based on a failure to incorporate all of the psycoligical factors involved or a misevaluation of values applied to things and actions by an individual. Choosing what we value is the act of choice, our actions are dictated by the values we choose.

Perhaps a more mathematical equation.

(A + B + C) vs. (D + E + F)

If ABC is greater then person will take action one, if DEF is greater person will take action two. The act of choice comes in not between the two actions, but rather what values we assing to the variables. That is what determines which side of the equation is greater, the existence of the equation itself has little to do with the act of choice. Rather, it is pretty meaningless mechanism compared to the much more profound human act of value setting for the variables.

Perceptions of -EV activity in others is most likely a result of failing to incorporate a variable or inability to correctly estimate a variable (especially diffucult when trying to evaluate anothers values).

2) A multi stage EV model was already discussed. If you don't understand it then you'll have to study NPV. I can provide links if you need them.

3) Fair enough. I think Sklansky has made posts about the afterlife before, go there for some more spirited debate.

As stated in my multi stage EV model, and afterlife is just another cash flow. No matter its value it is really no threat to the integrity of the model.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
2) A multi stage EV model was already discussed. If you don't understand it then you'll have to study NPV. I can provide links if you need them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to study NPV, once upon a time I was a Finance major. It's not rocket science.

I'm not trying to get hung up on whether all human morality decisions are "+EV" or not. That's not really the point I was trying to make. One of the points in my first reply to your initial post was simply that "I don't believe that morality is dependent on our gaining satisfaction from it's principles". I believe that it's possible to do something "right" (at cost to myself) without receiving physical benefits, or even corresponding psychological benefits from doing so. You might say that my beliefs really involve my thinking that I will somewhere down the line be "paid back" for doing so, and maybe that is so.

Anyway, this is really all beside the main point of your original post, which seems to be that there is no absolute morality, and all morality is actually just created by humans. We've established that I don't agree with that.

[lehighguy]

1) I'm not sure what model your using then. How do people make decisions. Can you explain it?

2) I see no evidence to support a God/Externally given absolute morality. Moreover, constant use of such mechanisms has cause a great deal of human suffering.

Having to rely on an externality to determine proper actions seems a fundamental degradation of the free will and consciousness of man, relagating him to little more then an animal or a slave, and I see no evidence to reach that conclusion.

[West]

I finally got around to reading a little bit of the rest of this thread and what seems strange to me is that it seems like you see my viewpoint as "anti-free will", but I actually see it in reverse - if man is unable to ever do anything other than what is "+EV" for himself, then how does he have free will? If he doesn't shoot his neighbor, it's because he couldn't, based on his psychological makeup. If he does, it's because he couldn't not do it, because of his psychological makeup. Isn't that what you are saying?

[lehighguy]

As I stated, the equation isn't the important part. You seem to think it is. The variables in the equation of the important part. We can determine what the value of those variables are. The equation is merely the mechanism by which values become actions. The real choice isn't the action itself, but rather assinging value to things which results in an action being taken.

Absolutist morality takes that ability away. Instead of being able to set the variables yourself (determine your own values) they are decided by some outside force. That is why you are futally attempting to suppose a -EV decision. The only way a human can have any choice in your model is by disobeying the equation itself since the variables are decided for him. Focusing on the equation (actions) rather then on the variables (human values derived from our consciousness) is the error.

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

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
As I stated, the equation isn't the important part. You seem to think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Important part of what? No offense, but I don't think there is anything important about your equation. I'm simply asking, if individuals always act in such a way that they perceive as "+EV", do they really have free choice?

[ QUOTE ]
The variables in the equation of the important part. We can determine what the value of those variables are. The equation is merely the mechanism by which values become actions.The real choice isn't the action itself, but rather assigning value to things which results in an action being taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutist morality takes that ability away. Instead of being able to set the variables yourself (determine your own values) they are decided by some outside force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective morality doesn't mean that an individual can't determine his own values - it just means that those values might not be, truly, moral. I think that makes more sense than the point you are apparently trying to make with this thread - that whatever actions an individual decides are of value (even in the case of a serial killer who simply enjoys murder/rape/torture/what have you), should then be defined as moral (which renders the concept meaningless).



-----

Earlier you asked me what other inputs might there be that would make an individual consider an action to be "right", other than some form of satisfaction...fear would be an obvious one.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Right and wrong do not exist outside of a human mind, thus "absolute morality" is an oxymoron.

[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.