That’s important because we’d like moral strategies (under whatever view we think is more plausible) to out-compete immoral strategies;
I’d like to hear more about this. I’m not sure I understand the term “moral strategy” when it’s perfectly aligned with optimal personal outcomes (ability to out-compete other strategies). If it’s an optimal strategy, why do you need to label it “moral” or “immoral”?
My answer, by the way, is that morality is a mechanism to improve outcomes on hard-to-measure dimensions, which are usually ignored in simple game theory analyses. Thus, they probably won’t align perfectly with any provable equilibrium. “Stag hunt, and spend a little of the resulting utility to express gratitude to the spirit of the stag and the universe which includes hunting.” is just not on the decision tree under consideration. Nor is “share your bounty of rabbits with the failed stag hunters, because next time it may be you.”
I’d like to hear more about this. I’m not sure I understand the term “moral strategy” when it’s perfectly aligned with optimal personal outcomes (ability to out-compete other strategies). If it’s an optimal strategy, why do you need to label it “moral” or “immoral”?
What I mean by “moral strategy” is a strategy that’s recommended by an observer’s moral system. I think that isn’t necessarily the strategy that’s optimal, at least for non-consequentialist ethics. (An immoral strategy would be any strategy that’s prohibited by that moral system.) If there are a bunch of prisoner’s dilemma-type games happening out there in the world, and they tend towards an equilibrium where people are using strategies that aren’t recommended or are even prohibited (according to some observer’s ethics), then that’s bad (according to that observer) even if the outcomes are optimal.
I’d like to hear more about this. I’m not sure I understand the term “moral strategy” when it’s perfectly aligned with optimal personal outcomes (ability to out-compete other strategies). If it’s an optimal strategy, why do you need to label it “moral” or “immoral”?
My answer, by the way, is that morality is a mechanism to improve outcomes on hard-to-measure dimensions, which are usually ignored in simple game theory analyses. Thus, they probably won’t align perfectly with any provable equilibrium. “Stag hunt, and spend a little of the resulting utility to express gratitude to the spirit of the stag and the universe which includes hunting.” is just not on the decision tree under consideration. Nor is “share your bounty of rabbits with the failed stag hunters, because next time it may be you.”
What I mean by “moral strategy” is a strategy that’s recommended by an observer’s moral system. I think that isn’t necessarily the strategy that’s optimal, at least for non-consequentialist ethics. (An immoral strategy would be any strategy that’s prohibited by that moral system.) If there are a bunch of prisoner’s dilemma-type games happening out there in the world, and they tend towards an equilibrium where people are using strategies that aren’t recommended or are even prohibited (according to some observer’s ethics), then that’s bad (according to that observer) even if the outcomes are optimal.