Discussion On Our Moral Dilemmas.

[Jack Knave]

I haven't finished this yet but I'm finding it interesting and thought I'd post it here. It's on how we make moral choices and the conflicts in those choices, and how they differ between what we think and what we do etc.


https://www.edge.org/conversation/molly_crockett-daniel_kahneman-deontology-or-trustworthiness

[SusanDoris]

Yes, looks interesting; not sure whether I will listen to the discussion, but deontology is a new word for me, so I have just looked up the definition. Never having studied Philosophy properly, I am wary of using the vocabulary of the subject and admire those who do.

[Nearly Sane]

Yep, thanks for this. Very interesting. I found the idea that we trust people following rules more trustworthy intriguing. In one sense it is not surprising since part of that trust is it is easier to know how that person will react. A regular bus service that  turns up at the same time each day is easier to trust, even if it turns up at what for me is a bad time. Yet there seems to be something more to our trust in a person.

All the way through reading I kept feeling that it is like a flip side of game theory, in some sense our moral actions are based on a complex set of calculations about the future possibilities, as well as the current action. I'm trying to see how the usual 'winner' in game theory 'generous tit for tat' fits into this approach. Link below covering some of stuff on strategies in game theory.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/19/generous-tit-for-tat-a-winning-strategy/#2bf0861d66eb

[Jack Knave]

Yep, thanks for this. Very interesting. I found the idea that we trust people following rules more trustworthy intriguing. In one sense it is not surprising since part of that trust is it is easier to know how that person will react. A regular bus service that  turns up at the same time each day is easier to trust, even if it turns up at what for me is a bad time. Yet there seems to be something more to our trust in a person.

All the way through reading I kept feeling that it is like a flip side of game theory, in some sense our moral actions are based on a complex set of calculations about the future possibilities, as well as the current action. I'm trying to see how the usual 'winner' in game theory 'generous tit for tat' fits into this approach. Link below covering some of stuff on strategies in game theory.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/19/generous-tit-for-tat-a-winning-strategy/#2bf0861d66eb

I haven't finished it yet but yes the game theory ethos fits in here, from what I can tell. Possibly the thinking that goes on before decisions and actions that are seen in game theory(?).

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't finished it yet but yes the game theory ethos fits in here, from what I can tell. Possibly the thinking that goes on before decisions and actions that are seen in game theory(?).

Agree, that seems to tally. Indeed thinking about it consequentialism is,while an overall frame for a motivation in game theory, something that also looks at each choice as much more complex than a game theory strategy. So much of what can be analysed scientifically is dichotomous that multiple calculations that we normally get  don't fit well.