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.