Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
I don't know about moral, but from a practical standpoint, "treating others the way they treat you" would very likely devolve into a tit-for-tat, "He started it!" spiral of behaviour.
If you're trying to live a good life, and avoid unpleasantness, someone has to be the first to say, "I won't hit him back, in hopes that he'll stop hitting me." It doesn't work all the time (or even most), but it's the best way to try to move forward.
If you're trying to live a good life, and avoid unpleasantness, someone has to be the first to say, "I won't hit him back, in hopes that he'll stop hitting me." It doesn't work all the time (or even most), but it's the best way to try to move forward.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Horatius,
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.
Altruistic tit-for-tat.......sounds like the basis of a new religion. What do you mean by this phrase?
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
It is a Game Theory term, and could, in fact, be the basis for altruism arising in nature, according to theory.
It is a strategy where by you treat someone according to how they treat you. If they do something bad, you do retaliate. If they do something nice, you do something nice, in return. This is the "Tit-for-Tat" part.
If you never met someone before, but act nicely towards them, by default, without expectation of reward; and ONLY act bad towards someone after they had acted badly against you, you are said to be practicing "Altruistic Tit-for-Tat".
To explain it better, you must first get familiar with Prisoner's Dilema: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Then, move on to other related topics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
ETA: I should add that, in studies of iterated Prisoner's Dilema strategies, the "Altruistic Tit-for-Tat" approach has been shown to be the most successful way to play, most of the time.
I also recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (2nd edition or newer). He has a very good chapter on the subject, that links into other biological theories he has worked with.
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Yes, I had thought of that, but really - if you had to bet on what would really happen, where would you put you money?
Perfect game theory only really works if everyone involved knows, understands and uses perfect game theory. How likely is that to occur?
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
tsg
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,771
What is tat, where do I get it, and how do I trade it in for the other thing?
But straight tit-for-tat isn't the most viable. Tit-for-two-tats is a much more succesful strategy, and I beleive there are several others that have been thought up, although they are usually much more complex.
It makes sense from a logical viewpoint. Tit-for-tat is essentially a positive feedback system, so once someone starts a certain behaviour it will be carried on forever. The two-tats system is much better because it keeps the feedback in check. If someone is constantly agressive others will respond in kind, but if something is a one-off event the whole system won't suddenly explode.
Of course, pretty much all the strategies are unstable on their own, since they will inevitably be invaded by other strategies that can succeed in an environment dominated by any one in particular. For example, a system composed of only tit-for-tat is identical to one composed only of tit-for-two-tats, or in fact on composed only of "sit around not doing anything".
I think so, or at least to some degree. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and where possible treat them well even if I don't know that they've earned such treatment. But when it comes down to it, I also try to treat people acording to the treatment that I feel they deserve. That means that if someone trys to cheat me, I don't cheat them back, but I also don't do business with them anymore (a minor case in point is the fruit seller in the street that was charging me a foriegner's mark-up.).
I think I still tend to err on the side of niceness, even when I know I'm right, and when I don't, err on the side of caution in admitting that their "earning bad treatment" may simply have been a misunderstanding.
But the golden rule, however much I applaud it in many ways (and in some ways it does form the basis of my morality) can't stand alone.
As to the question of whether or not there is any such thing as objective morality - I'm going to dodge that question for now except to say that I don't care because regardless, moral ideas mean something to me.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
I don't farking care. It feels sometimes as if I've spent my life trying to treat people the way I'd like to be treated, only to be mocked for it at best, and victimized for it at worst.
These days, I try only to keep myself from hating everyone, indiscriminately.
This Guy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,140
Having read some of your other post, I think I have an idea of how you feel. I won't be so brash as to claim to actually understand how you feel. I've not had your experiences, and could probably never truly understand. But I think I have a small idea at least.
In my slightly over 50 years on this globe, I've generally tried to practice the golden rule. I too have been taken advantage of, and generally not always obtained the outcome I hoped for.
But I still think it's the way to live. What I have received from this lifestyle is a long list of friends, a lot of memories of the faces on the people I've helped out when they needed it, and a few bad memories to go along with the rest.
In my case at least, I think it's been a fair deal.
So, FWIW, I'll keep treating as I would like to be treated. If that doesn't work for someone I have to deal with, then I'll switch, and treat as treated. But I'll try it the other-way around first
Kilgore Trout
Wuse
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,441
This sounds a lot like a (LaVeyan) Satanism idea to me.
As to if it's moral, it depends on just what they do to you and what reaction may best elicit change, if necessary.
As to if it's moral, it depends on just what they do to you and what reaction may best elicit change, if necessary.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I'd put my money on what is likely to emerge naturally, given an enviornment open to natural selection pressures. And, in the long run, in such an enviornment, perhaps Altruistic Tit-for-Tat is not as unlikely as you think! After all, it seems to have emerged naturally, in ourselves and other lfie forms, in the form of Reciprocal Altruism. The Selfish Gene does a good job describing this, in one of its chapters (2nd Edition or later).
You are assuming one can not develop the ability to inately act in a manner that allows them to play a perfect game, without conciously understanding what a "perfect game" is.
Technically, you may be right, for some enviornments.
Also, if you can deduce someone is playing Altruistic Tit-for-Tat (ATfT), there are ways to take advantage of that, and beat 'em. Therefore, ATfT is not always the perfect strategy. But, in most competitions, it does seem to win the most battles, as far as I recall.
And, complexity of the strategy usually has little to do if one wins or not, as far as I understand.
Also consider that ATfT is more likely to emerge, because of its simplicity. That does not mean it is necessarily better, but in context of this thread, you could argue that the phrase "Do Unto Others..." came out as a result of this natural tendancy.
Ask your local fine tea shops and dairy farms.