Crime of the century

[Winstonm]

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.

...

Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

Except Prisoner's Dilemma is "solved" to not be evil/evil if the interaction is a repeatable interaction with memory. Then you get strategies like tit-for-tat, and cooperative tit-for-tat which do much better, even just thinking of your own self interest.

 

But even so evaluating morality from a selfish perspective seems unsatisfactory to me.

Again, I am not a student of this concept, but might it be better to alter the concepts to give/take when using selfish/unselfish components?

 

Perhaps constucted like this:

 

Give/Give=1 point for each

Give/take=0 points for give and 2 points for take

take/take=1/2 point for each due to damage of conflict

 

Wouldn't this help explain how selfishness could be viewed as a form of insurance?

 

Once you get past the basic game, I'm lost - so if there are complex solutions according to game theory, if you wish to contribute I'd need really simple explanations - thanks.

[kenberg]

The problem, I think, with any game theory approach is that self-interest is perceived so differently. The following conversation with a suicide bomber seems possible:

 

Rationalist: Let us pursue self-interest.

Suicide Bomber: Fine.

Then he pulls the pin.

 

His interest is killing people. He is pursuing that interest. Not everyone wants a home in the suburbs.