The Rules of the Morality Game

[CalvinBall]

We can all agree that we evolved morality. Whether we stumbled onto platonic moral truths, or our current morality reflects the traits that got humans off the trees and into the cities, our moral sense has grown hand in hand with us up the taxonomic tree.
Evolutionary Stability is an important game theory model, which I admit I've only read as paraphrased my Dawkins, rather than in it's Maynard Smith original. The concept is thought that a species will settle into a strategy (behavior being given the intentional stance) or mix of strategies such that no other strategy (or mix) can push it out of dominance.
The classic example is doves and hawks (historical names, as Dawkins points out, doves are assholes) Hawks attack competitors immediately and fight dangerous fights. Doves fly away, always losing their territory but never being injured. Neither is stable as a homogeneous group, a single hawk in dove town will scare all doves of all resources, and a small group of doves amongst a constantly fighting world of hawks would do comparatively better. Depending on how you quantify the pay-offs and punishments, you end up with some mix of hawks and doves which is stable, no other system could do better against it. Note that this is different from optimal.
So, are the game of Morality is, are there Evolutionarily Stable Strategies for humans in moral arenas, and are those strategies what we would call moral. For example, pacifism is not allowed, because it does badly against warmongering. Open and available scientific research seems to do well, because it will do better than even a world of censors.
Are there stable strategies at the individual rather than the societal level?
Fun Game Huh!?!

[philsov]

Evolutionary Stable Strategies for humans in moral arenas

Buh?

The arenas (especially when it comes to morality) are human vs. human. As such, anything which is not mutually assured mass destruction is permissible given how you've framed whatever you're talking about. Or is "pacifist" a different species than "warmonger"?

[LaserGuy]

There is no guarantee that a dynamic system will ever come to equilibrium; many dynamic systems are inherently chaotic. Since human populations are not stable, technology is enhancing, many resources are scarce and finite (but the relative value of those resources is also changing over time), I don't think there's much of an argument to be made that we are in a stable equilibrium at present. You're starting with a very simple toy model and trying to scale it up to an extremely complex system.

I'm not sure what you mean by stable strategies at the individual level either. The example you describe with the hawks and doves involves an equilibrium between multiple competing strategies. The hawks don't choose their strategy, a priori, because it will lead to a stable equilibrium, nor do the doves. Indeed, there is no way of knowing, a priori, whether you should be a hawk or a dove in that situation because your choice perturbs the dynamics.

[Puppyclaws]

We can all agree that we evolved morality.

No, we can't. A lot of people would argue that morality is something taught. Unless by "evolved" you mean "changed over time." In which case "We can all agree that we developed morality" would be a less wrong statement.

Whether we stumbled onto platonic moral truths, or our current morality reflects the traits that got humans off the trees and into the cities, our moral sense has grown hand in hand with us up the taxonomic tree.

Proof? I am pretty sure that humanity has changed a great deal morally while sitting in the exact same spot on the taxonomic tree. I would argue that humans have morals, all other species do not, so it has definitely not "grown hand in hand with us." Also you appear to be applying directionality to evolution, but I may be misinterpreting.

The classic example is doves and hawks (historical names, as Dawkins points out, doves are assholes) Hawks attack competitors immediately and fight dangerous fights. Doves fly away, always losing their territory but never being injured. Neither is stable as a homogeneous group, a single hawk in dove town will scare all doves of all resources, and a small group of doves amongst a constantly fighting world of hawks would do comparatively better. Depending on how you quantify the pay-offs and punishments, you end up with some mix of hawks and doves which is stable, no other system could do better against it. Note that this is different from optimal.
So, are the game of Morality is, are there Evolutionarily Stable Strategies for humans in moral arenas, and are those strategies what we would call moral. For example, pacifism is not allowed, because it does badly against warmongering. Open and available scientific research seems to do well, because it will do better than even a world of censors.
Are there stable strategies at the individual rather than the societal level?

Understanding the complexity of human behavior in these terms is problematic because people engage in a far greater range of behaviors than other species. Suicide bombers (for just one example) engage in behavior that is neither hawk nor dove.

Absolute pacifism is the only strategy that is "stable at the individual level" (if I am interpreting what you mean correctly) in the sense that if each individual chose it, it would result in maximal peace. The problem being that, if there is even one hawk, the whole system starts to fall apart pretty quick. As LaserGuy points out (at least this is how I interpret his words), the problem of a dynamic system like this is that your own decision alters the playing field, and assuming other people are making similar calculations, there can be no consistent best position in a system where people are always adjusting based on the available data.

I am pretty sure anyway that these things you are talking about are debates over rational decisions assuming a goal of utilitarian stasis, not morality.

[LaserGuy]

No, we can't. A lot of people would argue that morality is something taught. Unless by "evolved" you mean "changed over time." In which case "We can all agree that we developed morality" would be a less wrong statement.

Proof? I am pretty sure that humanity has changed a great deal morally while sitting in the exact same spot on the taxonomic tree. I would argue that humans have morals, all other species do not, so it has definitely not "grown hand in hand with us." Also you appear to be applying directionality to evolution, but I may be misinterpreting.

I'm not sure that this is the necessarily the case. Many animals, particularly primates, but also dolphins and other mammals have social systems that include altruism and what we would consider to be rudimentary moral behaviours. While obviously humans have a much more sophisticated and dynamic set of moral rules than animals, that is not to say that animal behaviour is completely devoid of such concepts.

Absolute pacifism is the only strategy that is "stable at the individual level" (if I am interpreting what you mean correctly) in the sense that if each individual chose it, it would result in maximal peace. The problem being that, if there is even one hawk, the whole system starts to fall apart pretty quick. As LaserGuy points out (at least this is how I interpret his words), the problem of a dynamic system like this is that your own decision alters the playing field, and assuming other people are making similar calculations, there can be no consistent best position in a system where people are always adjusting based on the available data.

Yes, that's essentially what I was getting at.

[Zcorp]

No, we can't. A lot of people would argue that morality is something taught. Unless by "evolved" you mean "changed over time." In which case "We can all agree that we developed morality" would be a less wrong statement.

Proof? I am pretty sure that humanity has changed a great deal morally while sitting in the exact same spot on the taxonomic tree. I would argue that humans have morals, all other species do not, so it has definitely not "grown hand in hand with us." Also you appear to be applying directionality to evolution, but I may be misinterpreting.

I'm not sure that this is the necessarily the case. Many animals, particularly primates, but also dolphins and other mammals have social systems that include altruism and what we would consider to be rudimentary moral behaviours. While obviously humans have a much more sophisticated and dynamic set of moral rules than animals, that is not to say that animal behaviour is completely devoid of such concepts.

To back up Laserguy.
Morality, like just about every behavior is both from nature and nurture (biological and environmental). More or less depending on the person/animal and the environment they grew up in. Someone that argues that morality is solely taught would be wrong. Because someone argues something doesn't mean they have a good argument or are right.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/frans_ ... orals.html

[Puppyclaws]

I'm not sure that this is the necessarily the case. Many animals, particularly primates, but also dolphins and other mammals have social systems that include altruism and what we would consider to be rudimentary moral behaviours. While obviously humans have a much more sophisticated and dynamic set of moral rules than animals, that is not to say that animal behaviour is completely devoid of such concepts.

No, absolutely not. Morals require moral reasoning. Animals do not have the capability for moral reasoning. I think you can finish this syllogism yourself. Dolphins do not engage in altruistic acts for moral reasons.

[qetzal]

No, absolutely not. Morals require moral reasoning. Animals do not have the capability for moral reasoning.

Based on what? Primates show evidence of being able to reason. They also exhibit social behaviors that seem pretty analgous to moral behaviors in humans. How can we say categorically that they're incapable of moral reasoning?

[Puppyclaws]

Based on what? Primates show evidence of being able to reason. They also exhibit social behaviors that seem pretty analgous to moral behaviors in humans. How can we say categorically that they're incapable of moral reasoning?

Based on a conservative assumption of behavioral cause. If you think that non-primates are behaving in a manner that you define as altruistic as a result of moral reasoning, there is basically no need to even discuss it; non-primate animals do not engage in higher level reasoning and it would be nonsense to entertain it. It's like saying that non-reproducing worker ants have decided to forgo having sex in order to contribute to the colony: you're implying an intention that isn't there. If you want to argue about higher level reasoning in primates, I can see there being a remote case. I would still say that the level of reasoning witnessed in non-human primates does not rise to anything we would consider "moral reasoning."

Morality, like just about every behavior is both from nature and nurture (biological and environmental). More or less depending on the person/animal and the environment they grew up in. Someone that argues that morality is solely taught would be wrong. Because someone argues something doesn't mean they have a good argument or are right.

No. The biological roots of behavior when it comes to a complex process like morality are essentially meaningless.There may be biological reasons why certain forms of behaviors and attitudes are more or less likely to be taken on by a person who is taught them, but that does not really make them "partly biological." People who say things like "just about every behavior is both from nature and nurture" are typically making categorical errors in interpreting this. It is no more biological than writing with a pen; you need a hand to do it, but that does not make it strongly biologically influenced. You will still never be able to do it without learning, and the hand has not evolved with handwriting as an intended result.

Also note, I was objecting to a statement beginning with "we can all agree...." You may disagree with me about how true what I just said is, but you should be aware that a considerable number of people who study human behavior (that is, a considerable number of working psychologists and sociologists) do not agree with you, or with the OP's initial statement.

[qetzal]

Based on what? Primates show evidence of being able to reason. They also exhibit social behaviors that seem pretty analgous to moral behaviors in humans. How can we say categorically that they're incapable of moral reasoning?

Based on a conservative assumption of behavioral cause. If you think that non-primates are behaving in a manner that you define as altruistic as a result of moral reasoning, there is basically no need to even discuss it; non-primate animals do not engage in higher level reasoning and it would be nonsense to entertain it.

Why is it nonsense to entertain? Because you say so?

Here's a philosophy professor who disagrees with you:

I frankly see no good reason for not calling our apes moral creatures.

(Emphasis in the original)

Here's an article that summarizes some evidence in favor of morality in non-human primates.

I don't claim that chimps are demonstrably capable of morality & moral reasoning. But to dismiss the idea as "nonsense" is just wrong.

[Zcorp]

Go ahead and define moral reasoning and then define morals. You are not speaking of the same concepts as the rest of us.

No, absolutely not. Morals require moral reasoning. Animals do not have the capability for moral reasoning. I think you can finish this syllogism yourself. Dolphins do not engage in altruistic acts for moral reasons.

Why do they engage in altruistic actions then? Selfish reasons? When a behavior that betters the group is also in the interests of the self are you stating it is no longer moral? That this lacks moral reasoning?

Outside of primates we see all sorts of self-sacrificing behavior, K9's are a great example. We know that dogs are aware of other consciousnesses and act relating to it. Dogs have demonstrated verifiably that they are capable of empathy and often will suffer personal risk or damage to assist others.

If by moral reasoning you are stating that these animals don't use language and formal definitions and understandings to form their ideology then I suppose yes I agree. This has nothing to do with them acting in accordance with different morals or selfllessly for the better of the group or others. Many animals understand concepts even if they can't and really understand language.

[Copper Bezel]

Right, morality is definitely not the same thing as moral reasoning, and the latter is largely a rationalization for the former. Since we're concerned about morality here, we can forget about moral reasoning entirely. The ugly snakey hole in your gut when you lie to someone you love is morality, and chimps presumably do it, too. (I mean - theory of mind there works in layers and we have more of them, I know that, and there are certainly chimp behaviors that are just beyond alien to us.)

Absolute pacifism is the only strategy that is "stable at the individual level" (if I am interpreting what you mean correctly) in the sense that if each individual chose it, it would result in maximal peace. The problem being that, if there is even one hawk, the whole system starts to fall apart pretty quick. As LaserGuy points out (at least this is how I interpret his words), the problem of a dynamic system like this is that your own decision alters the playing field, and assuming other people are making similar calculations, there can be no consistent best position in a system where people are always adjusting based on the available data.

Yes, that's the backstory for the theory from Dawkins that Calvinball is referring to. An ESS is a behavior plan or a set of interacting behavior plans that is least vulnerable to change, because deviating from it is detrimental to the individuals. (I think the example in The Extended Phenotype was essentially a freeloading problem - a freeloading behavior becomes less valuable as it's more common, so it actually plateaus instead of taking over completely.) Dawkins also has an extraordinarily ruthless definition of "altruism" that has nothing to do with morality (because it's used to describe behaviors, not motivations, to avoid exactly the intentionality problem earlier in the thread.)

So the thread problem is, "How do you create a system where the ESS is favorable for society." The last attempt to solve that problem was called "society."