Is there a dog?: Ethics

Why be good?

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:30:27 GMT

Not so long ago I had a discussion with someone who was discontented with the state of their life - in fact they were very angry about it. Their anger was all directed at the perceived source of all the trouble and wrongness in their life - in a word, God.

The reason God was blamed was that this person's Christian beliefs were at the heart of their behaviour. They followed the Golden Rule (the do unto others thing), as well as all of the Ten Commandments, and yet, their life was in tatters. People mistreated them, took advantage of their good nature, they had bad luck with their investments, they had developed a stress-related disorder and their relationships were disintegrating. Now, this unfortunate person argued, I know that God has set aside a reward for me in Heaven. I know that suffering brings virtue. I know that I cannot expect life to fall into place for me. But why does it have to be so hard? What would happen if I were to renounce my beliefs and all the moral imperatives that go with them? I could act exactly as I wanted then, and maybe my life would be easier and better.

My first impulse (which I'm glad I resisted) would have been to state "God doesn't exist. It is completely irrational to place blame on something which doesn't exist, so I suggest you start looking elsewhere for the reason you are unhappy with your life." The reason I hesitated to say this was because the problem this person was facing was bigger than simply a consequence of their beliefs. This is a problem which everyone faces, whatever their belief system is and regardless of whether it happens to contain a deity. Simply put, it is this: If I am good, what do I get out of it?

When we are young, we are told to be nice to others, to be polite, to refrain from violence, to share our toys, to help those who need our help, to tell the truth. In other words, to be 'good'. When we are not 'good', we face a consequence which hopefully teaches us to be 'good'. When we are 'good', we are praised, which hopefully reinforces our behaviour. Of course, whether or not that works as a young child, as our powers of reasoning develop we need to be shown a rational path to realising for ourselves that it is right to behave in a certain way. We need to reach a stage in our moral development which allows us to make decisions about often complex situations without reference to a parental figure for guidance.

What exactly constitutes the right way to behave can vary somewhat, depending on our cultural setting. In some places personal property is less important than sharing with the community. In one culture a casual smile between a boy and girl publicly imbues their relationship with an inappropriate level of intimacy, whereas the same smile could simply be a polite gesture elsewhere. However, certain things remain true regardless of where you are. An act which brings harm to someone is wrong, in general. To act, therefore, in a way which minimises harm (not always an easy thing to judge) is right. To act for the good of others is right. It is right in a way which is fundamental to the fabric of all society.

This is a principle embodied by the words of Jesus Christ: "Love thy neighbour as thyself". (Its polar opposite has often been seen in the motto of Aleister Crowley, "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." Funnily enough though, Crowley intended 'what thou wilt' to be something quite different to the self-interest it has often been misinterpreted as.) The Confucian virtue expressed in the Doctrine of the Mean advocates harmony and benevolence. The Buddhist Pancasila has its followers renounce killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. The Hindu concept of Dharma guides each individual along a path of right living at each stage of their lives.

For each of these, there is a different reason to obey their particular instruction - often enlightenment, Heaven or communion with God as a reward for right behaviour, or perhaps Hell or a similar consequence for malfeasance. In the same way as the child behaves rightly to win reward or to escape punishment, the follower of religious doctrine is motivated to receive a return on their investment of good behaviour. This has the advantage of allowing the person who does not want to think about why it is right to behave this way to still live a good life.

If you were to think about it, though, why would you want to act in an ethical way, if not to receive some sort of reward? The fact is that if everyone in the world consistently behaved ethically, the world would be a better place to live. We would treat each other respectfully and peacefully, and my friend would have no reason to complain about being treated badly. There is no need for the promise of Heaven or Hell after death when we can play a part in creating either here and now.

Good and Evil

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:30:31 GMT

I saw an interesting idea raised on Way of the Mind recently, and rather than comment there, as it was posted a while ago, I thought I might muse a little on it here. The idea of Good vs Evil – I have mentioned in past entries here that one of the problems with speaking of these concepts is that it is not easy to define either of them in an objective way.

What is good? Most people would acknowledge their understanding of what the word “good” means. Almost from birth, we are told either that we are or we should be good boys and good girls. Usually this means “well-behaved” or compliant with the wishes of people in authority. But as we grow older, we come to appreciate a different meaning – one that implies certain things are to be desired more than others. These things are good. Certain things are desired not to be – these are bad. And still others are viewed with horror or disgust by people, who describe them as “evil”.

The problem with these ideas is this: the implication contained in the use of these terms, given the authority they carry, is that they are universal, objective truths. Something that I describe as good has this goodness as an intrinsic quality, a moral stamp of approval (incidentally, this is related to why it is a bad idea to tell children they are good or bad boys or girls – you never know what idea they will carry with them through life). But we all know as thinking adults that what one person describes as good will be described by another as bad, or even evil. Sometimes, what a person describes as good one day will be seen by the same person as bad a week later. For example, sunny weather is generally acknowledged as a “good” thing for beachgoers, but too much is “bad” for farmers.

So is there any objective test we can apply to something to see whether or not it is good? Some people, viewing some concept or other (God, life, peace, harmony, love) as primary, contend that any event, thought or action which promotes this concept is good and any which promotes the negation or the opposite of this concept is bad, or even evil. Sounds reasonable…right? Only trouble is, whether or not you can tell which is which…

More to come shortly.

More on Cooperation as a Lifestyle Choice

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:23:01 GMT

Do Nice Guys Finish Last ?

It was pointed out in a comment on the last rambling related to the Prisoner's Dilemma that if we all cooperated with one another and acted for the common good, then anyone who cheats will prosper. This is unquestionably true and was a sizeable flaw in my argument. In fact, although I appealed to something which sounded vaguely like mathematics to justify my choice of cooperation as a lifestyle, it has been shown mathematically many times to be true that in the long run and over a very large number of iterations (which would come close to representing the interactions of all people), to apply this strategy consistently, regardless of how other players interact with you, is a very bad idea. You lose. People unfortunately can and do take advantage of the soft and naiive.

[What is perhaps a little more surprising is that the strategy of always defecting, that is, always taking the selfish option, is just as bad. In fact, all of the top-scoring strategies in this particular game were so-called "nice" strategies. That is, they never defected before the other player.]

The best strategy to apply in a game like this (and as was stressed in the comment noted above, this was a game, not real life), is 'Tit-for-Tat with forgiveness', where you cooperate on the first round and thereafter do whatever the other player did on the round before, except that occasionally you will cooperate when they have defected (forgiveness). And, it must be pointed out, the definition of a successful strategy in this game is the one that brings the greatest gain for the player applying it.

Perhaps this reflects in some way how social contracts operate. Almost every interaction we have as members of society depends in some way on trust. We are trusted to pay as much tax as we should; we are trusted to keep to the speed limit; we trust one another to carry out whatever duties we have as part of our job; we are trusted to provide the basic necessities of life for our children until they can provide them for themselves. When we give evidence in a court of law, we say that we promise to tell the truth, and the court is obliged to trust that we will do just that. If any one of us betrays that trust and "defects", then there are consequences, and that same trust is no longer automatically assumed. Some evolutionary biologists contend that social organisation in some parts of the animal world, just as for humans, operates this way to assure the best outcome for the species. Those animals who cooperate are allowed to remain part of the social unit; those who defect no longer have the privileges or security of belonging.

As an aside: We see examples of this in much more large-scale interactions also: the arms race is seen as being a prisoner's dilemma of sorts, where every nation would like to stop building expensive nuclear weapons, but cannot trust the other nations involved in the race not to take advantage of any such lapse and gain the upper hand (we can now only destroy the enemy nation's population and infrastructure twice over, whereas they can do it to us five times ). The UN trusts every member state to stay within the terms of treaties they are signed up to, and when they don't, sanctions are applied. Individual nations, particularly those with a stake in keeping commodities they depend on flowing, (not naming names like oh I don't know the United States for instance) are of course far less trusting of others.

Now I seem to be slightly off track. What I meant to say originally was this: it is undoubtedly true that wherever all people within a community interact solely for the greater good, any individual who then decides to defect and act solely for his or her own gain stands to benefit far more than if everybody was competing. However over time a concerted cooperative ethic will gain far more for the community and hence the individuals within it than a survival of the fittest mentality. I have had arguments/discussions with colleagues, some of whom will be rolling their eyes reading this ;), about why I believe as teachers we need to avoid promoting competition within the classroom. The reason being this: Cooperation is a more evolved way of thinking and acting, with better overall consequences for our social fabric and our children's future. I'm not saying that we should trust each other blindly, regardless of how that trust is repaid: that would be providing an incentive to those who do not trust to defect. The prisoner's dilemma classically illustrates this: if you know that your opponent will always cooperate, your best option is then to always defect, assuming you are acting in your own self-interest.

And that I guess is what I really would like to promote, not that it's a very original idea. Let's try individually to be part of a community, rather than a collection of individuals. We have it within us to overcome our instincts and avoid acting solely for our own benefit. That way all the nice guys (and girls) can finish first, after all.

Cooperation as a lifestyle choice

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:22:45 GMT

The Prisoner's Dilemma and how to solve it

To start with, for those unfamiliar with the prisoner's dilemma, here it is. You and your friend are arrested on suspicion of committing a crime (whether or not you actually did is irrelevant). While being questioned (separately so you cannot communicate), it becomes apparent that you have two options available to you: (1) you may remain silent, or (2) you may 'defect', confessing to the crime and basically dropping your friend in it. So what do you do? Your choice, according to game theorists, should depend on consequences, as follows: If both of you defect, you will both receive prison terms of two years; if you both remain silent, you each get a shorter sentence of one year; if you choose different options, the one who defects walks free while the one who remains silent gets a 3-year term. (Interested?)

There are all sorts of interesting conclusions to be drawn from how this situation pans out. Clearly, if you both remain silent the outcome is better for both of you, with the shortest combined prison sentence. The core assumption made by game theorists, however, is that human beings are rational (read: self-interested) and therefore in all situations involving choice will choose the option which leads to their greatest gain. That is, you should risk the two-year sentence so that you have a chance of getting off scot-free. Also, you avoid the possibility of being betrayed and risking the 3 year sentence.

All of which you could have got from the Wiki link above. So here's why I mentioned it: we all play this dilemma out, everyday. When we let a car into a queue ahead of us, we are being altruistic and assuming that the same will happen for us when we wait at an intersection during rush hour. When we neglect to put a dollar into the honesty box beside the coffee machine in the waiting room, we are being cynical and assuming that everyone else does that, so we should not act differently and lose out. The point is, everyone else's behaviour is the deciding factor. And in the long run, if everyone acts cynically, we are all worse off: the honesty box is replaced by a coin-operated vending machine (Now $2 per cup). If everyone acts altruistically, we are all better off and get to work on time.

Hence the origin of the so-called Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because that's how the universe operates. It's like karma, but you don't have to wait for your next incarnation. So here's an idea. Let's everybody be nice to one another. OK? We all know how it will work. No promises of an eternity in paradise, or Valhalla, or coming back as a hotel heiress in the next life. Right here and now, we will all be better off.

Peace and kisses for everybody.

PS all of the above assumes noone has access to a quantum computer. If this is not the case, all bets are off - every for themselves.