miércoles, febrero 06, 2008

Is/Ought and game theory

This is a comment on a post of Larry Arnhart about the is/Ought dichotomy in a very interesting discussion wirth another person. According with my practical view of philosophy and politics I wrote the following:


The good is the desirable because psychologically it is so individually. This is so because the darwinian evolution made our psychology (the teleological argument above). In this sense, there is no objective social good, but many. Even the exact aggreement in desires is the source for maximum conflict, for example, when two of us desire the same unique thing.


Besides the political scale, in which I am in agreement with Mr Arnhart, in a micro scale perhaps it would be useful to consider some concepts of game theory applied to human behaviour in society:

Positive-sum games (also called non-zero sum games) are the interactions where both sides gain after the game: any kind of voluntary exchange enters in this group by definition.

Negative-sum games are the opposite. They are called zero-sum games in game theory but robbery rape and theft are negative sum games, not zero sum games. After them, one of the sides decrease in satisfaction more than the increase of satisfaccion in the other side.

True zero sum games appear when two or more men compete for the same good without degrading its quality, for example, love for another person, political elections, competition for a job etc.

Positive sum games increase wealth, satisfaction of neccesities or, in leftist terms, welfare. Zero sum games does not create nor destroy, but some zero sum games are unavoidables, while negative sum games destroy wealth, satisfaction or welfare.

Once the possible human interactions are classified in this way, then the criteria of the SOCIAL good -not the personal good- is:
  1. To permit positive sum games,
  2. To ban negative sum games and
  3. To ritualize/regulate zero sum games.

However, some positive sum games in the short term produce negative outcomes in the long term and the opposite. For example, consented poligamy, a positive sum game, increase man-to-man competition to the level of violence, a negative sum game. On the other side, competition for a job, a 0 sum game, enhances collaboration, a positive sum game that creates wealth.

Because we don´t know all these side effects, prudence is absolutly necessary, and here I return to the main conservative argument of Mr Arnhart.

NOTE: Pareto optimum changes are positive sum games where no part is in worst position than before the game. Positive sum games must be considered in detail; Not all positive sum games guarantee that all players end up in a better position. For example, compulsory taxes are -theiewtically- positive sum games when applied to resourceful individuals to aid poor ones (because subjective gains in the second are theorétically greather than subjective losses in the first). But a lot of intermediate games are played between the exaction and the donation by other players that must be considered to extract the social consequences. Also, it is neccesary to consider the detriment on positive sumness produced by the exaction of money, that could have been used in alternative positive sum games that are Pareto optimums, such are the free market, free colaboration, familly care and even voluntary charity. It is also neccessary to consider the lack of involvement of the beneficiary of the welfare in positive sum games. This also impedes the corresponding creation of wealth.

To avoid eventual privileges kept by the rule of pareto optimum, a moral and politic toward the equality of opportunities is necessary. I confess that this post is just an first try. The whole thing has to be though further.

6 comentarios:

Mary White dijo...

Tenéis un premio. Por cierto, la propuesta de Himno no la puedo ver, me lleva a una página de Error de blogger ¿y eso? ¿había tacos o porno?

Felicidades, Memetic Warrior:
http://marygodiva.blogspot.com/2008/02/arte-y-parte.html

Dhavar dijo...

Os he conocido por el premio de Mary White.Enhorabuena.Espero venir por aquí a menudo.

Dhavar dijo...

Todo esto no es sino una reformulación del eterno lenguaje moral, pero al vestirlo de equivalencias matméticas o "sumas" y "restas", es decir, "bienes " y "males", parece que se les despeja la conciencia a algunos.
Y los actos más eminentemente morales son, precisamente,juegos de suma negativa, como dar la vida por alguien a quien amas.

Memetic dijo...

De eso se trata dhavar. Dado que en esta época el lenguaje moral y el sentido común, las costumbres etc son cuestionadas, hay que rehacerlo todo de nuevo partiendo de la razón en la medida de lo posible: recuperar el sentido común perdido. (aunque no todo todo el sentido común).

Y el dar la vida por otro, si es voluntario, entonces es un juego de suma positiva, por definición, porque el que se sacrifica quiere hacerlo. Es su apreciación subjetiva la que vale, aunque externamente su cambio de situación parezca otra cosa. No existe observador objetivo, solo lo que sucede en la subjetividad de los jugadores.

Dhavar dijo...

Memetic:

Si por razón entiendes razón libre de presupuestos históricos, ese proyecto, el de la Ilustración, hace tiempo que ha fracasado.Como tú mismo señalas en otra parte, si todo se pretende crear ex novo cada mañana, vamos de cráneo.
Pero esto no lleva a otra parte, y es que la razón excede con mucho la parte de sí misma que puede determinar.Lo dado también es parte de lo racional, como van reconociendo, por ejemplo, los matemáticos desde Godel.Y esa parte no determinable es la que realiza la mayor parte del trabajo de formación de las sociedades.La luz es parcialmente ciega para la luz, podría decirse.

Memetic Warrior dijo...

Pero es que esta ilustración es justo lo contrario que la ilustración anterior. Mientras esta ponía la razón por encima de todo, la ilustración evolucionista pone la evolución por encima de la razón. Se trata de poner la razón en su sitio, un sitio bastante limitado.