Post by Kyrisch on Jan 14, 2010 3:36:54 GMT
If the nice guys always finish last, why doesn't everyone cheat? Why be kind, really? In fulfilling our own personal desires, why should we care whether or not anyone else is happy? In principle, there is something that compels people to say "we should", but that's just misapplied knee-jerk programmed empathy whose evolutionary purpose was to enable intimate social interaction. And even with this instinct in place, we still have so much so-called evil in the world.
So there is some cognitive dissonance between what people say is right and what people actually do (or care enough to think about). But I have actually thought about it. And while I feel that same empathy towards the cashier as I look into his eyes and pull a con, where is the rational argument for why we should care?
Something I realized recently is that being "kind" to people may be rationally permitted by the fact that many of the social problems we are faced with in society behave like the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, there are two people convicted of a crime, separated from each other. The authorities each bribe them with freedom if they defect (act as a witness that the other did the dirty work). So, if one of them defects, and the other stays silent, the defector gets away clean and the other one gets locked up for a very long time. However, If they both stay silent, they each get locked up for a few months, but eventually get their freedom. And finally, if both of them defect, they each get the same life sentence. Interesting, eh? A modern interpretation of this dilemma was presented in the movie The Dark Knight, where two ferries rigged with explosives were filled with people, each group given the trigger for the other boat. If either group pressed the button and killed everyone on the other ferry, they would be spared. If neither one pressed the button, they both would be set off at midnight (this is a bit more grim version, but what do you expect, it was the Joker). And that makes all the difference, so keep the original in mind:
If one defects and the other doesn't, the defector gets away clean and the other gets life. If they both defect, they both get life. If neither defects, they both go free after a short stay.
Now if you really think about this, it's very difficult to figure the best course of action. If you cheat (defect), and your accomplice plays by the rules, you win big. But if you try to both cheat each other, you both lose big. On the other hand, if you play by the rules, you could get screwed over big time. Or, if everyone plays nice, there's a small punishment and then you go free.
Such it is with society! If we act selfishly, everyone loses. If we act selflessly, everyone wins. And not just cases where you get direct benefits from being altruistic, but also by simply upholding the principle of the golden rule allows the standard to be such that everyone gains in the end. If there are too many cheaters, the system breaks and everyone loses. If people have a general mutual trust, everyone shares a mutual benefit. And in the same way playing by the rules comes at a small cost in the dilemma, oftentimes being altruistic requires a little bit more work than not. So in a way, upholding such a practice as principle yields the greatest benefit, rather than taking things case-by-case (as is what rationality often demands, and it risks an overhaul of the system by cheaters). This position, in game theory lingo, is called superrationality, and it is the answer to rational morality.
So there is some cognitive dissonance between what people say is right and what people actually do (or care enough to think about). But I have actually thought about it. And while I feel that same empathy towards the cashier as I look into his eyes and pull a con, where is the rational argument for why we should care?
Something I realized recently is that being "kind" to people may be rationally permitted by the fact that many of the social problems we are faced with in society behave like the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, there are two people convicted of a crime, separated from each other. The authorities each bribe them with freedom if they defect (act as a witness that the other did the dirty work). So, if one of them defects, and the other stays silent, the defector gets away clean and the other one gets locked up for a very long time. However, If they both stay silent, they each get locked up for a few months, but eventually get their freedom. And finally, if both of them defect, they each get the same life sentence. Interesting, eh? A modern interpretation of this dilemma was presented in the movie The Dark Knight, where two ferries rigged with explosives were filled with people, each group given the trigger for the other boat. If either group pressed the button and killed everyone on the other ferry, they would be spared. If neither one pressed the button, they both would be set off at midnight (this is a bit more grim version, but what do you expect, it was the Joker). And that makes all the difference, so keep the original in mind:
If one defects and the other doesn't, the defector gets away clean and the other gets life. If they both defect, they both get life. If neither defects, they both go free after a short stay.
Now if you really think about this, it's very difficult to figure the best course of action. If you cheat (defect), and your accomplice plays by the rules, you win big. But if you try to both cheat each other, you both lose big. On the other hand, if you play by the rules, you could get screwed over big time. Or, if everyone plays nice, there's a small punishment and then you go free.
Such it is with society! If we act selfishly, everyone loses. If we act selflessly, everyone wins. And not just cases where you get direct benefits from being altruistic, but also by simply upholding the principle of the golden rule allows the standard to be such that everyone gains in the end. If there are too many cheaters, the system breaks and everyone loses. If people have a general mutual trust, everyone shares a mutual benefit. And in the same way playing by the rules comes at a small cost in the dilemma, oftentimes being altruistic requires a little bit more work than not. So in a way, upholding such a practice as principle yields the greatest benefit, rather than taking things case-by-case (as is what rationality often demands, and it risks an overhaul of the system by cheaters). This position, in game theory lingo, is called superrationality, and it is the answer to rational morality.