Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-19-2005, 10:25 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's where the problem lies. Even though your goal may not be to dominate, once you start trying to maximize *everyone's* utility, you *have* to dominate to achieve your goal. Unless, of course, everyone agrees and voluntarily does what you think is best, in which case the utilitarian calculation was unnecessary in the first place. It's only needed when people have different ideas of what constitutes satisfaction, and in that case, there must be some centralized decision maker that decides what utility is, how to maximize it, and what actions to impose in order to achieve it. If someone can explain how to do that without oppression, I'm ready to hear it.

So in a strict sence, the statement "utilitarianism is oppressive" may be untrue, in that if you use utilitarianism as a personal policy and don't use it to make decision that are imposed on others, it isn't oppressive. Of course, in that case, you're really practicing anarcho-capitalism - each actor seeks to maximize his own satisfaction, but can't aggressively impose on others.

Utilitarianism isn't really utilitarianism if only applied to the self.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-19-2005, 02:54 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played).

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with this, then surely you can see that if both players know this, they will also defect in the next to last round?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if 1) they don't know how many rounds are in the game (which is why I disagreed with your #5 assumption earlier), or 2) they will be playing multiple games (thus, making it as if there was no known ending to the game).
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-19-2005, 02:56 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

I disagree with your criteria for determining property rights. Are you going to force your belief on me? That's oppression.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-19-2005, 03:01 PM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

I'm not going to force you to believe anything. However, if you try to aggress against me, I'll respond with force. As long as you stay off my property and don't interfere in anything I'm doing, I don't really care if you don't believe in property rights, mathematics, or gravity. Enjoy.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-19-2005, 03:33 PM
atrifix atrifix is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

Okay, this is a possible way of solving the paradox. After all, we can reject any of the assumptions, and it seems like in real-life situations information is definitely partial. I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd argue that there are certain situations where assumption #5 applies that you're still going to want to maintain that it's rational for people to cooperate, so one of the other assumptions must go as well. Consider this quasi-centipede game: on each round, we play a simultaneous-move prisoner's dilemma. Defecting when the other player cooperates pays (5,0), both defecting pays (1,1), and both cooperating adds 3 to each player's payoffs and keeps the game going another round. The game lasts for a finite number of rounds t (say t=3000). Now, if both players cooperate every round, their payoffs are (3004,3004), but in spite of this, there is a unique equilibrium where both players defect on the first round and get (1,1). I suppose that we could maintain that defecting on the first round is the rational play, but that seems pretty counterintuitive.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-19-2005, 03:33 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to force you to believe anything. However, if you try to aggress against me, I'll respond with force. As long as you stay off my property and don't interfere in anything I'm doing, I don't really care if you don't believe in property rights

[/ QUOTE ]

You ARE using force to make me believe (or behave as if I believed) in your idea/theory of property rights. I think you have my property. What gives you the right to forcefully keep what is rightfully mine?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-19-2005, 05:13 PM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

I'm not using force to make you believe anything. I'm using force to repel your initiation of aggression.

Can you provide any justification for your "decree" theory of property rights? I'm eager to hear your logic. Maybe you're right, you really are the legitimate owner of the entire earth. I'm open to being convinced.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-19-2005, 05:19 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not using force to make you believe anything. I'm using force to repel your initiation of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to get what is rightfully mine... You are the aggressor and thief.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide any justification for your "decree" theory of property rights? I'm eager to hear your logic. Maybe you're right, you really are the legitimate owner of the entire earth. I'm open to being convinced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-19-2005, 05:28 PM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it sounds like we have a perfectly equal model for property rights. You claim that someone else owned the property and transferred it to you. I'm happy to honor such voluntary agreements between parties. In that case, show me the documentation, the contract between your predecessor and God. That should clear this matter up pretty quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-19-2005, 06:02 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it sounds like we have a perfectly equal model for property rights. You claim that someone else owned the property and transferred it to you. I'm happy to honor such voluntary agreements between parties. In that case, show me the documentation, the contract between your predecessor and God. That should clear this matter up pretty quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contracts are for capitalists -- God gave me a birthmark indicating I'm the righful heir to the earth. You didn't answer my question. How are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights? What right do you have to claim that you own part of the earth?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.