4 ms·
Illustrations like the prisoner's dilemma help convey how an entire group can benefit from certain behaviors, but they're less useful when making decisions as a
by jhickner 17y ago
Illustrations like the prisoner's dilemma help convey how an entire group can benefit from certain behaviors, but they're less useful when making decisions as a lone, rational actor with access to many different groups and no reason to keep iterating.
And even if such illustrations were more helpful, they wouldn't rise to the same level as an imperative moral code. Why not just view them as a challenge to be overcome?
- AngryParsley 17y agoWhy not just view them as a challenge to be overcome? Because I usually feel bad when I harm others, and I usually feel good when I help others. Altruism seems to be built into most human brains, and it would take a lot of conditioning to overcome. Most importantly, I think eliminating altruism would lead to a world where average quality of life was lower. (Of course, these altruistic tendencies are what cause me to care about average quality of life.)
- jamesbritt 17y ago"Because I usually feel bad when I harm others, and I usually feel good when I help others." I do, to, but I also feel that often it's because it has been drilled into me.
- anthonyb 17y agoThe main thing that you're missing is that people are social animals. That's how we've evolved, and why we have most of the cognitive biases/moral standpoints that we do (eg. punishing defectors/fairness/not killing other people for their stuff). This is Richard Dawkins' argument in a nutshell - you are essentially a paleolithic tribesman in a suit. If you prefer to look at it from a purely sociopathic amoral viewpoint, your ability to be a lone, rational actor is largely dependent on your interactions with society. You just have to look at people like Ted Kazcynski to see how completely independent actors live.