From: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Mathematical, Game Theory based ethical systems
Keywords: Where does God enter the moral equation?
Date: 14 Aug 1992 23:23:55 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <1992Aug13.014622.1231@agora.uucp> Michael Sandy
<mehawk@agora.rain.com> writes:

>I'm working on the pros and cons of a mathematical, game theory
>approach to ethical dilemmas.

[...]

>Now, what are the drawbacks to a naive approach to equating Optimal
>Gaming Strategy with Superior Ethical Choice?

>1)  It has the apparent weakness of relativism.

"Apparent" is a key word. Relativism is only a weakness if you assume
that there exists some absolute system of morality or that an absolute
system is desireable.

(Caveat: My comments are merely comments to the points Michael brings
up.  I've not made any attempt to formulate opinions on this subject.)

>2)  There isn't a single Optimal Gaming Strategy to get to!  OGS may
>have similar characteristics but there may be too few universally
>common characteristics to base a morality.  There may be a family
>resemblence, such that all strategies have things in common with
>other successful strategies.

Don't forget to take into account that a person's gaming/moral strategy
will be influenced by genetically influenced traits. That is, humans
may have evolved to a state where certain strategies which seem
good from a gaming theory standpoint are repugnant from a psychological
stand point (e.g. patricide, infanticide, incest, etc.). The same holds
for learned traits. Humans are susceptable to the programming of
previous generations.

>3)  Ethics _is_ more than balancing equations.  Our intuitions tell
>us so, and we ccan point to history for examples of civilizations
>which tried to mechanize human beings, reduce them to numbers.

This may be another result of human psychology. The only reason (that 
occurs to me right now) for why ethics seems more than balancing equations
is that I was taught early on that there were certain rules I must
not violate (e.g., lieing, stealing, cheating, killing, etc.). Every time
I balance an equation and violate one of these "immutables" it causes
me psychological pain. [Perhaps only because I was programmed to do
this].

>4)  There is a paradox in Game Theory:  A strategy that constantly
>makes its decisions based on eventual maximal return is inferior
>to, or at least returns far less, than a strategy couched in terms
>of "fair dealing", of "justice", and other principles.

Hmmm... I think this is a simplification. Strategies are not measured
independently. They depend on the environment in which they are executed.
For instance, the best strategy (to maximize some measured return) in
a group of doves is to be the single hawk. That same hawk does not do
well in a group of tit-for-tat'ers.

[other comments deleted]

In Game Theory it is assumed that there is a population of players
all trying to maximize some [possibly long-term accumulated] score.
There are some practical problems to overcome if you want to 
apply Game Theory to understanding human moral behavior: 

1) Humans do not all try to maximize the same scores (e.g. John may
try to maximize his capital wealth, while Mary tries to maximize the number
of offspring she bears -- quite conflicting goals if John and Mary are
married.)

2) Humans do not all concentrate on long-term benefits.

3) Humans change their goals and hence those things on which they
keep score and maybe even the periods over which they keep score.

4) Humans do not possess a universal measurement system. One persons'
white lie is anothers' road to hell.

5) Humans often seem happy to live with ambiguity and ambivalence.
That is, any given human may try to maximize seemingly opposing
scores without concern for the opposing nature -- maybe this is the
reason for white lies :).

I'm sure there are other problems. But htat is eough for now.

-- 

Stephen Kurtzman             | "where desire writhed there stands a stone;
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu      |  the change was sudden and complete"
                             |                              -- Maggie Roche