> The rest seems like a long walk around non-cooperative game theory in different terms.
Maybe I read it wrong, but I understand the main point of the essay is to emphasize social/cultural evolution and de-emphasize biological evolution of morality. (That there is a whole moral superstructure that doesn't come from biological evolution.)
Both can be modeled with game theory, but it is often awfully reductive. Game theory is a great source of moral paradoxes. A canonical example is "mutually-assured destruction" in a nuclear war. Another (my favorite) example comes from Yanis Varoufakis, he offered his game theory students a way to pass exam without grading, but only if they could actually act selfishly-rationally and without implicit distrust to the other members of society. The paradox is enhanced by the fact that they weren't even able to reflect on their decision. This shows the implicit power of social relationships in our decisions, but then - aren't we supposed to make free decisions?
This is also true on personal, not just societal level. With the current events, I am realizing how much of our moral dilemmas are really based on friendships and acquaintances (and you can see the difference between common folks and politicians/oligarchs). The banality of evil is that we often decide to favor existing friendships against firm moral principles.
I realized this watching Angela Collier talking about sexual harassment in academia; assuming I was a fellow professor and another professor, a friend for many years, was accused of sexual abuse, and me knowing that he has "a thing with the ladies", who would I trust, him or some student I don't really even know? Would I be willing to completely abandon the relationship in order to be completely impartial? I think even the rational Machiavellian explanation is not sufficient here (it might be actually more advantageous to be seen as impartial than to keep a friend, it's just I can just like that particular person more and therefore be more forgiving), and this shows this is not really just a status or hierarchy problem, but it permeates all social relationships.
Maybe I read it wrong, but I understand the main point of the essay is to emphasize social/cultural evolution and de-emphasize biological evolution of morality. (That there is a whole moral superstructure that doesn't come from biological evolution.)
Both can be modeled with game theory, but it is often awfully reductive. Game theory is a great source of moral paradoxes. A canonical example is "mutually-assured destruction" in a nuclear war. Another (my favorite) example comes from Yanis Varoufakis, he offered his game theory students a way to pass exam without grading, but only if they could actually act selfishly-rationally and without implicit distrust to the other members of society. The paradox is enhanced by the fact that they weren't even able to reflect on their decision. This shows the implicit power of social relationships in our decisions, but then - aren't we supposed to make free decisions?
This is also true on personal, not just societal level. With the current events, I am realizing how much of our moral dilemmas are really based on friendships and acquaintances (and you can see the difference between common folks and politicians/oligarchs). The banality of evil is that we often decide to favor existing friendships against firm moral principles.
I realized this watching Angela Collier talking about sexual harassment in academia; assuming I was a fellow professor and another professor, a friend for many years, was accused of sexual abuse, and me knowing that he has "a thing with the ladies", who would I trust, him or some student I don't really even know? Would I be willing to completely abandon the relationship in order to be completely impartial? I think even the rational Machiavellian explanation is not sufficient here (it might be actually more advantageous to be seen as impartial than to keep a friend, it's just I can just like that particular person more and therefore be more forgiving), and this shows this is not really just a status or hierarchy problem, but it permeates all social relationships.