Awesomelyglorious wrote:
monty wrote:
From a reductionist view, perhaps there is no reason for morality or ethics. But from the standpoint of cybernetics and systems science, morality and ethics do make sense. And the basic rules of conduct that consistently appear in culture after culture can be proven using game theory. It isn't supernatural, it is a natural of group dynamics.
No, behavioral patterns make sense. You still are getting caught on my distinctions. Morality refers to what beings ought to do. Behavioral patterns are what they do. Even in cybernetics ans systems science there is nothing to state that people should act a certain way, only that certain things make sense if a certain aim is meant. This is hardly proof of anything. Trust me, I can understand the position of behavioral patterns, it just is not what I speak of, because it does not legitimize the actions we do take.
I either don't see your distinctions, or I disagree. For example, in the prisoner's dilemma, it does state that it is in the best interest of a prisoner to squeal on the other guy - that they should confess, and the sooner, the better. In tit-for-tat, a pattern of conduct is established that both discourages the predatory aggression of others, while throttling escalation of aggression that might arise from misunderstood action. While this game theory equivalent of 'an-eye-for-an-eye' morality is not perfect in controlling all violence, it can be shown to be better than the alternatives.
Where culture and/or biology favors a prohibition of murder and theft, that society becomes more vigorous (less time spent on defensive/non-productive activity and destructive activity). As individuals are caught violating the taboos against murder and theft, they are killed off, exiled, or incarcerated where they are less successful at reproducing. Which reinforces the rules against murder and theft.