From: Michael Sandy <mehawk@agora.rain.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Mathematical, Game Theory based ethical systems
Keywords: Where does God enter the moral equation?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:46:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Open Communications Forum

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

The first premise is that a true dilemma will resolve to a dilemma
in Game Theory.  It may be resolvable, but it will still qualify as
a thought requiring problem.

Most intelligible moral rules resolve into questions of appropriate
Gaming Strategies.

Tough but fair, altruism on the assumption of long term interaction and
mutual reward, honesty    are all examples of winning strategies under
most conditions.  Further, they often act to bring about those conditions
under which they are optimized.

Caring for your children, mercy towards opponents, forgiveness, can be
understood as valid and powerful strategies.  Choosing a strategy often
depends on knowledge about the other player.


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.  When basing a Moral
Model on a Mathematical Model one is bound to accept that if the
Mathematical Model changes so must your moral one.  One could then
refuse the implications of the new Mathematical model.  Perhaps the
evidence of the success of the Moral Model might point out a weakness
in the Mathematical one.

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.

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.

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.

People don't trust, and don't have reason to trust, someone who will
change alliances whenever Game Theory calculates that doing so returns
a greater benefit.  When people make deals they can't predict every
twist and turn of fate that _might_ cause a Game Theorist to betray
someone.  Thus it is in the _interest_ of the Game Theorist to be
perceived as more than a Naive Game Theorist!  To hold to values, or
gaming strategies for their own sake.

Sometimes we cling to strategies or alliances because the cost of
switching is far higher than the possible rewards.  Sometimes we
deliberately conspire to _make_ that cost higher!  We refuse to
deal with opportunists because we don't want to be used.  We want to
play at the game we are good at, trusting people, making fair deals,
rather than the game where you have to watch everybody in a paranoid
fashion and *still* get betrayed.

It is the nature of Gamers to exclude people who disrupt the game.

Well, thats a start.  More later!

-- 
Michael Sandy
mehawk@agora.rain.com
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"The above does not reflect the views of any organization."