The article goes on to refer to a "paradox" and its "resolution", both
of which I have found puzzling for a long time.
The supposed paradox is that human beings choose "irrational"
behaviour i.e., behaviour that does not maximise benefit to self.
This is a "paradox" only because narrow self-interest is defined as
"irrational".
The supposed "resolution" of this is that studying MRIs demonstrates
the chemical reward system wired in the brain that generates this
behaviour.
This to me is not a resolution of a paradox, but a mechanistic
explanation of its operation.
The mathematician (and populariser) Morris Kline once pointed out that
sometime in the 19th century, science (and math) shifted from
explanation to [mathematical] description. A description, IMHO, is not
an explanation.
The "paradox" however can be resolved, it seems to me, without resort
to the extreme reductionism of studying chemical activity in the
brain. Rather, a broader idea of self-interest (and accompanying game
theoretical models) might demonstrate that a person does benefit from
both selfless behaviour and participating in a system of morals.
I feel rather embarrassed in writing the above, which seems trivial
and obvious, but then I am always puzzled by how often this claim of a
paradox keeps cropping up.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
