I'm answering Erik's message in pieces, because it was extremely long. I' I'll start it with a general question, do people here think that there is rarely a real conflict between one's own interest and the interest of others?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are > clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to > a society that almost no one would want to live in. It depends on what is desired from morality. Some are better than others for reaching particular goals, certainly. But, that naturally leads to the question "what goals?" It's easy to label your goals "rational" and another's goals as "irrational." However, that requires a definition of rational that differs from mine. Rational, to me, involves things like a reasoned deduction from axioms. Typically, in science, we have a model and compare the model with observation. A more general use of irrational is stating a set of priorities and performing actions that are inconsistent with those priorities. An example of this is smoking, while being very concerned about health risks from background radiation. If the small risk from background radiation is important, why isn't the large risk from smoking? But, some actions are arational. Choosing to sacrifice one's life defending another is inherently neither irrational or rational. It depends on one's set of priorities. If one is only concerned with one's own self interest, it is an irrational action: unless the alternative is a fate worse than death. However, if one believes in principals, then those principals can be worth dying for. > If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other, it would be an > awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if > everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain I won't argue with that, but I don't think that's the question at hand. The question at hand is "what will the plusses and negatives for that individual if that individual performs the action in question." You appear to argue that there is no significant conflict between rational self-interest and the greater good for all. I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest. But, that premise really doesn't match observation. The question is complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it. Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof. The existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual benefits all is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent. Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. > -- in other words, these moralities are only desirable to someone > if the majority do not follow the same morals. Sure, there are actions that can be identified as beneficial for the whole community if everyone does this. But, this begs the question "why worry about what benefits others?" Cutting out another argument for brevities sake, I'll just point out your whole theory hinges on the reduction of conflicts of interest between people to insignificance. >This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general >the "golden rule" strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic. I looked up game theory, and found what seems to be a pretty decent source for it at: http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html There are a number of different models there. One of the points that can be gleamed from reviewing these models is that there are circumstances in which the dominant strategy for each individual is, under some circumstances, a strategy which, if practiced by all, would be detrimental for all individuals. The tragedy of the commons is a subset of this problem. Arms races are given as another example. The idea that following the golden rule is a good general self-interest strategy runs against so many clear historical examples, that it would take a very detailed explanation to show why the first order inconsistency between this model and data is really meaningless. > a meme competition, and it seems to me that the meme that provides the > most "pleasantness" for the most number of people is likely to win. Historically, it hasn't. There are many examples in which systems that favor the welfare of the elite has survived for a very long period of time. The idea of representative government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a relatively new one. For example, it is not clear that, if someone of Lincoln's stature was not president at the time, representative government would have survived. IMHO, Lincoln was not engaged in hyperbola at Gettysburg. So, we have a brief period of human history, over which the type of society that is more like the one you suggest has barely survived and then prospered. That certainly doesn't constitute a proof. The most one can say is that the data provide mixed indications. Indeed, in an ironic twist, this system was created by a number of people who acted irrationally by your standards. It is based on shared faith, which you've labeled irrationality. If you are at all interested in an encapsulation of the nature of faith and reasoning that underlies this, two books that were written later, but captured the nature of the Enlightenment and reason would be very worthwhile. They are "The Critiques of Pure Reason" and "The Critique of Practical Reason." > course, "plesantness" is subjective, but since humans share a lot of the > same genetic heritage and similar environments, most of us will have > similar enough definitions to have compatible morals. Erik, with that sorta arm waving I could prove almost any system. I've seen at least three radically different systems "proven" with that type of argument. > > As you have presented it, this is a short-sighted philosophy. As I > alluded to above, if EVERYONE followed such a philosophy, then life >would be miserable for everyone. That doesn't stop it from being the best strategy for each individual. >Human progress is NOT a zero-sum game -- the pie >can be greatly enlarged by cooperation. So? That's not the point. The point is whether actions that hurt the group can be beneficial for the individual. > > > Best for whom? If not for you, why bother? You see, I'm guessing > > that there are assumptions by which you judged Bank's world. > >But it IS best for me, long-term. Maybe I will live forever and see >it. Come on, Erik, you know better than that. If you were to live 10,000 years, and the laws of physics were found to not even be a good approximation, then maybe you will live in a Culture world. But, what are the odds on that? Multiply that probability by the perceived benefit, and you will get the value of this possibility to you. Its very small. Bank's work is good SF, with one suspense of disbelief, one can accept the world. Well and good. But, one does not deal with reality that way. >But you are right, there is another assumption: it is not a white >and black, Culture good, not-quite-Culture bad world. Taking steps >closer towards that world is better for me, even if it isn't >completely obtainable in my lifetime. Sure if everyone does that. But again, that ignores the obvious. You can do little to change the overall condition of society, but you can do a lot to help yourself. If you look at self interest alone, there will be a number of times when you can get away with harming society more than you help yourself, but help yourself more than the loss to society harms you. So, we've gone through this a number of times, and it seems clear to me that your argument rests on the conflict between one owns self interest and the interest of others being an illusion. But, it may not seem as dependant on that question to you; different sides in a discussion see things differently. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
