LIVING IN SOCIETY

“How Can Humans Live In A Society Where

Everyone Is Pursuing Their Personal Best

Interests Or Goals?”

WHY BE MORAL?

We Are Social Beings

“Man is by nature a political animal.” (Aristotle) His term “political “ is synonymous with our usage of the word ”social.” We are not hermits. By nature we live in groups, cooperating with one another in some common work or function.

• Morality, that discipline that relates us to our world and other individuals in our world, arose when people came to understand that ‘rules’ are necessary for social living.

• What if there were …– no rules of morality?– no laws?– no police?– no courts?– no government?

LEVIATHAN*

Thomas Hobbes1651

• A sea monster mentioned in the Book of Job, where it is associated with the forces of chaos and evil. Figuratively, any enormous beast. It is Hobbes’ term for government, which he thinks is required because of his view of the nature of humanity.

From Text, Page 142

“no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

WHY?

“THE STATE OF NATURE”

1. Equality of Need2. Scarcity3. Essential Equality of Human Power4. Self-Interest

Resultant:A Constant State of War, of One with

All...”

Where: “Life is Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish,

and Short.”

Do You Agree?

Examples to Support Your View?

Cooperation Is Essential...

To escape the “state of nature” and to live, in an

ordered society (safe, stable, predictable) where

we each can pursue the realization of our

potential; our life’s goals.

How to Establish Cooperation?

• Hobbes believed two things must happen:

1. There must be guarantees that people will not harm one another.

2. There must be ways to ensure we can rely on one another to keep agreements, and not harm one another.

• For Hobbes the only way for this to happen is for governments to be established, and given authority to enforce rules essential to cooperation among people.

Moral Rules Are the Basis for Cooperation

--Examples --

• Don’t Cheat

• Don’t Deceive

• Don’t Deprive of Freedom or Opportunity

• Don’t Kill

• Don’t Steal

• Et Cetera

Summarized: Don’t Cause Harm or Evil

The Social Contract

• Morality then requires that we set aside our self-centered inclinations, that is we “blunt our immediate self-interest desires,” in favor of rules that impartially promote the welfare of everyone alike. But we do so because everyone else is willing to do so as well.

• Morality consists of the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well.

“The law of nature…which obliges everyone, and reason

which is law, teaches all mankind who will but consult

it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to

harm another in his life, health, liberty of possessions.”

John Locke

English philosopher

1632-1704

Concept of Justice

“… When a number of persons engage in a mutually

advantageous cooperative venture according to rules,

and thus restrict their liberty in ways necessary to yield

advantages for all, those who have submitted to these rules

have a right to similar acquiescence on the part of

those who have benefited from their submission.”

A Theory of Justice

John Rawls

Social Contract

• Obviously, we did not sign a (social) contract when we were born into this world. Yet, such a contract exists implicitly, by implication.

• These moral rules, which we acknowledge help individuals from suffering evil at the hands of another, are rules we consider as binding on us, as we realize we all benefit from the fact that these rules are followed.

• Morality is like a game. The game is social living; we derive enormous benefits from it, and we do not want to forgo those benefits. But in order to play the game and obtain the benefits, we have to follow the rules.

We Cooperate and Keep the Moral Rules Out of

Self-Interest

• If we do not live by the moral rules, treating others fairly or justly (Rawls), we cannot expect to gain the benefits. If we make a habit of doing harm or evil to others, people will not be reluctant to do harm or evil to us.• This acknowledgment of the value to ourselves of abiding by the social contract with its notion of moral rules is traditionally referred to as “enlightened self-interest.”

Self-Interest versus

Selfishness

• According to Erich Fromm, the prominent existential psychologist, they are not the same; in fact, they are opposites.

• Enlightened self-interest is self-love…a healthy esteem for one’s self and realistic concern for one’s well-being.

• The selfish person does not esteem and respect himself too much, but rather too little.

Selfishness

• Lack of interest or care for self leaves individuals empty and frustrated. Unhappy and anxious, they become concerned about grabbing from life all they can. While seeming to care too much for themselves, it is actually an unsuccessful attempt to compensate for failure--to care too little for the real self.

• The truly selfish person is incapable of interest in others, because s/he is not capable of a real interest in their self.

“The selfish person is perpetually engaged in a zero-sum game--me against them conflicts--where one person’s gain comes at the expense of another person’s loss. Self-interest, in contrast, allows all of the players to win.”

Mahoney and Restak

in The Longevity Strategy

Loving Self

• “. . . Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

• “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

• These two precepts from the Christian religion emphasize that the standard for behaving toward others is the standard of our care and concern, love if you will, for ourselves.

Ultimate Self-Interest Is Determined By One’s View of the Nature of Human

Existence

• Theistic - Salvation/Eternal Life in another world

• Non-Theistic - Happiness in this world

“The only passion natural to man is the

love of himself, or self love, understood in a

broad, that is, not mean sense.”

Jean- Jacques Rosseau

“The individual is most likely to contribute to social betterment by

rationally pursuing his own best long-range

interest.”

The Morality of Self-Interest

Robert G. Olsen

“The more each person strives and is able to seek his profit (self-interest) …

the more virtue does he possess; on the other

hand, in so far as each person neglects his own profit (self-interest) he is

impotent.”

Spinoza

“If I am not for myself. who will be for me?

If I am for myself alone, what am I?”

Rabbi Hillel

1st Century, B.C.

Reciprocity

• This notion of “ethical egoism” is rooted in the notion of reciprocity.

• We acknowledge that to gain the greatest good for self, we must negotiate a fair and justly ordered society, grounded in rules of cooperation.

Reciprocity

“Is there a single word such that one could practice it throughout life?” Confucius replied, “Reciprocity…do not inflict on others what you yourself would not wish done to you.”

Confucius 6th Century B.C.

The Golden Rule

. . . says, in its essence:

Give the same weight to the interests of others as you give to yourself.

Christianity

“Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them”

Jesus of Nazareth First Century, A.D.

Sikhism

“Treat others as thou wouldst be treated thyself.”

Sixteenth Century, A.D.

Confucianism

“What you don’t want done to yourself, don’t do to others.”

Sixth Century, B.C.

Buddhism

“Hurt not others with that which pains thyself.”

Fifth Century, B.C.

Hinduism

“Do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.”

Mahabharata, Third Century, B.C.

Judaism

“What is hateful to yourself, don’t do to your fellow man.”

Rabbi Hillel, First Century, B.C.

Jainism

“In happiness and suffering, as in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self, and should therefore, refrain from inflicting upon others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted upon ourselves.”

Fifth Century, B.C.

Zoroastrianism

“Do not do unto others all that which is not well for oneself.”

Fifth Century, B.C.

Classical Paganism

“May I do to others as I would that they should do to me.”

Plato, Fourth Century, B.C.

“Max and Lyn”Story from

How Are We To Live, by Peter Singer

THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION

Robert Axelrod

1984

Enforced Cooperation(Government)

contrasted with

Biological Cooperation(Natural)

AXELROD’S TENETS:

• Cooperation can begin in a world of self-interested individuals without the aid of a central authority (Government).

• Cooperation based on reciprocity (I’ll not harm you if you won’t harm me; and I’ll help you if you’ll help me) will thrive and be stable because it results in successful societies.

• Cooperation, once established on the basis of reciprocity, can protect itself from less cooperative strategies.

So is Axelrod correct that government is not essential to cooperation, or is Hobbes correct in saying that government is essential to cooperation?

Foundation of cooperation is not

trust, but the durability of the

relationship.

The Complexity of Life In Our Urban World

• Cooperation is based on reciprocity, the ability to believe that the other person will keep the moral rules as well.

• But, in our densely populated, increasingly urban world, we have no basis for keeping track of everyone and monitoring their trustworthiness in keeping the moral rules in their relationship with us. We are “moral strangers.”

• Aristotle’s view of the ideal social grouping was 200-300 individuals. It was in this size social setting that we evolved as homo sapiens (hunter-gatherer); the so-called “environment of our evolutionary adaptability.” (EEA) This was the world of the initial social contract—a world where daily interactions were with individuals who where known to one another.

• Absent such an environment today we must rely on government and laws.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

How Contemporary “Game Theory” Supports Reciprocity As A Moral

Principle

Reading of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”

Peter Singer’s Version

Reviewing Why Confession Is In Your

Best Interest

• If the other prisoner confesses and if you confess, then you will receive eight years in jail. Therefore if he confesses you are better off confessing as well, for if he confesses and you do not, you will receive ten years.

• If the other prisoner does not confess and if you confess, then you will go free, whereas if you do not confess you will remain in jail for another six months. Even if the other prisoner does not confess, you will be better off if you do.

• Therefore you must confess, as that will get you out of jail the soonest, regardless of what the other prisoner does.

Reading of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”

Peter Singer’s Version

The rest of the story!

THE CATCH!

• The other prisoner is being told the same thing as you.

• So, he will be concluding the same thing as you conclude, that it is in his best interest to confess.

• But, if you both confess you will be both be given eight year prison sentences.

• Whereas if neither of you had confessed you would be out in six months.

• If you could communicate with the other prisoner you could reach an agreement to cooperate, by not confessing. By cooperating and not confessing you would both be better off than if you acted independently.

• Cooperating will not obtain either of you the optimum result, immediate freedom, but it will obtain both a better result than if you had not cooperated.

PRISONER’S DILEMMA

(SINGER’S SCENARIO)

Prisoner 1 Don’t Confess Confess Don’t 1 = 6 months 1 = free Confess 2 = 6 months 2 = 10 years (a sucker)Prisoner 2 1 = 10 years 1 = 8 years Confess 2 = free 2 = 8 years (a sucker)

• “Not to confess” is to cooperate with the other prisoner by taking into account what is best for both.

• “To confess” is to defect, or to be purely self-interested.

Note: Not confessing results in less total (collective) evil (years in jail) in all scenarios.

Points To Be Made

• It is rational for each to confess, from a narrowly self-interested point of view.

• But, if each does what is rational from an unreflective and narrow self-interest, they will each be worse off than if they had chosen differently.

• Enlightened, reflective thought about ultimate (or longer term self-interest) leads to greater degrees of cooperation and greater individual and collective good.

Morality As A Prisoner’s Dilemma

• Living in a social setting creates a “prisoner’s dilemma.”

• One’s interests are affected not only by what one does, but by what others do.

• Paradoxically, the social environment is such that if each individual pursues what is in their short term (or narrow) best interest, they will be worse off over the longer term than if they had cooperated with others, and not pursued what appeared to be in their short term best interest.

• Such leads us to acknowledge that we need enforceable agreements to obey the rules of mutually respectful social living, the so-called moral rules.

• As Gauthier has put it, “we bargain our way to morality.”

Axelrod’s Research

• In Axelrod’s research he set up a round-robin tournament, with many different players. Each player must play the game 200 times with one player. Each game involves deciding whether to cooperate with the other player, by not confessing, or to defect, and confess.

• How many years you spend in jail as a result of that decision depends on what the other player does, in accordance with the offer made by the police in the scenario.

• The difference is that having done this once, you do it again, and so on. Each time that you do it, the situation is different, because you know what your opponent did before. Once you have played 200 games with one player, you move on to the next, and so on, until everyone has played the required number of games with everyone else. At the end, the total number of years each player has spent in jail is summed. 

• Axelrod pitted all the possible strategies against each other using a computer, to see what strategy resulted in the least time in jail—the greatest reward. The winner turned out to be the shortest and simplest strategy submitted. The strategy was Tit for Tat:

• Begin by cooperating, and on every subsequent move do whatever the other player did on his or her previous move. If the other player cooperated, you cooperate, if they were uncooperative and you were cooperative, they receive an uncooperative response back on the next turn.

• This led to a significant discovery about the role that narrowly self-interested behavior can play in enhancing one’s prospects of gaining cooperation from others. Axelrod shows precisely why beings who act in a cooperative manner can do as well as, or even better than, those who behave in their own short term interest.

• In doing better for itself, Tit for Tat also helps all other cooperative strategies to do better. In other words, the total number of years spent in jail by Tit for Tat and other cooperative strategies against whom Tit for Tat plays will be the minimum possible, because these strategies will all begin by cooperating, and will continue to do so. In general, cooperative strategies support each other.

• In sharp contrast to cooperative strategies, lack of cooperation or defections spoil each other’s chances of success when they play against each other. Uncooperative strategies playing against each other all end up doing very badly.

• When cooperative and non-cooperative strategies are matched against each other, cooperative strategies will do well as long as they are provoked to retaliate by the first non-cooperative action of another.

From Computer Games to Human

Interaction• To understand the significance of these

findings for the evolution of cooperative behavior, we have to stop thinking of them as computer programs or strategies for playing games, and instead think of them as ways in which humans might behave. 

• First, in a group of humans all behaving cooperatively, each of them would do well. Second, in a group of uncooperative humans, each of them would do badly. Third, and most importantly, when some humans in a group are cooperative, and and others are defectors (non-cooperative), the cooperative ones would continue to do well, as long as they stop cooperating immediately when they discover that another human is being uncooperative.

• To be cooperative with someone who is not cooperating in return is to allow yourself to be a sucker. Where there are suckers, cheats prosper. Conversely, if there are no suckers, cheats do badly.

• If all cooperative humans withdraw cooperation as soon as they detect a lack of cooperation on the other side — in other words, as soon as they notice that they are dealing with a cheat — non-cooperative humans will have few opportunities to exploit suckers.

• To be a sucker is bad, not only for oneself, but for everyone. Fortunately this does not mean that we have to be a cheat ourselves in order to do well. The saving element in the situation is that if a proportion of the individuals in a group behave in a Tit for Tat kind of way, they can keep out the cheats. Such a society may no longer be paradise, because ‘kindness’ and ‘niceness’ can no longer be unconstrained, but it is still a lot better for all than life in a group dominated by mean humans.

• In almost every facet of our lives, we are faced with decisions that are structured like repeated versions of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

• In personal relationships, in business relationships, in politics and in relations between governments, we must decide whether to cooperate with another individual, potential business partner or client, political ally or foreign government. Each side may be tempted to try to reap the benefit of co-operation without paying the price; but if both do it, they will both be worse off than they would have been if they had all cooperated.

• Axelrod’s findings can be applied in ways that make it possible for all parties to achieve better results than they would have achieved otherwise.

Lessons of Cooperation from

“The Prisoner’s Dilemma”

• Begin by cooperating with others.• Practice reciprocity. Do good to

those who do good to you, and harm those who harm you: “Tit for Tat”’ Keep it simple: “Life is not a zero sum game.” Some do not have to lose for others to win. All can win through cooperation.

• Be forgiving: “Forgive and forget the past.”

• Don’t be envious: Again, “Life is not a zero sum game.”

Promoting Cooperation

• Enlarge the shadow of the future. This is done by making interactions formed more durable, and by making them more frequent.

• Change the payoffs. Make the long term incentive for cooperation greater than the short term incentive for defection.

• Teach people to care about each other.

• Teach reciprocity. • Improve recognition abilities. The

ability to recognize the other person from past interactions, and to remember the relevant features of those interactions, is necessary to sustain cooperation.

“Societies evolve ethical (moral) rules in order to make cooperation more reliable and more durable. The results benefit everyone in society, both collectively and as individuals.

Adapting an initially friendly and cooperative stance, entering into long-term relationships, but not allowing oneself to be exploited, being straightforward and open--avoiding envy..these are sound recommendations for anyone seeking a happy and fulfilling life as a social being.”

Peter Singer

How Are We To Live

“The Tragedy of the Commons”

In the Middle Ages, the archetypal English village owned one common field for grazing cattle. Every villager shared “the common” and was allowed to graze as many cattle as he wanted. The result was that the common was often overgrazed until it could support only a few cattle. Had each villager been encouraged to exercise a little restraint, the common could have supported far more cattle than it did.

Tragedy…(continued)

This “tragedy” has been repeated again and again throughout the history of human affairs. Sea fisheries that have been fished are exploited and over-fished. Whales and forests and aquifers have been managed the same way.The tragedy of the commons is, for economists, a matter of ownership. The lack of a single owner of the commons or the fishery means that everyone shares equally in the cost of overgrazing or over-fishing.

Tragedy…(continued)

But the individual who grazes one too many cows or the fisherman who catches one too many netfuls still gets the whole of the reward of that cow or netful. So he reaps the benefits privately and shares the costs publicly. It is a one-way ticket to riches for the individual and a one-way ticket to poverty for the village. Individual rational behavior leads to a collectively irrational outcome. The free-rider wins at the expense of the good citizen.

STEPS IN MORAL BEHAVIOR

• Moral Sensitivity: Interpreting a situation as having consequences for good or evil.

• Moral Reasoning:Formulating a morally appropriate course of action.

• Moral Motivation:Deciding what one intends to do; deciding to do the moral not the immoral.

• Moral Implementation:Executing/implementing the moral plan of action.

THEORIES OF MORAL

MOTIVATION

• Socialization (Aristotle’s Virtues Developed As Habits)

• Education(Kohlberg’s principled morality based on rationality)

• Biological(David Hume’s Innate Moral Sense)

“A craving to inspire in others esteem for ourselves through good behavior (repression of that which would arouse in them a poor opinion of us) is the real basis for all true sociality.”

Immanuel Kant

German philosopher

19th Century

“For Whom The Bell Tolls”

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were as well as if a manor of their friend’s or thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

John Donne

“A solitary person is a contradiction in terms. A person is a person only through another person.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu1999

Speaking at UK Convocation commemorating 50 years of African-Americans being a part of the University community