Does “winning” mean achieving your “true” values, or does it just mean succeeding at doing something you’re trying to do? In the former case, equating “quality of life” to “winning” sneaks in the assumption that people are egoists (and don’t care about quantity of life).
Funnily enough, I was just thinking about why I personally don’t subscribe to full-on altruism towards all of humanity, and the answer that came to mind was “it just isn’t rewarded strongly enough to be worth it”
That the post is explicitly titled “tragedy of the commons”, suggests the position that on the net people are worse off with taking the selfish path, and that current incentives create a problem.
Most people are egoists in the relevant sense—just look at the consumption of luxury goods in the west whilst poor people starve in Africa. Some people may aspire to altruism, but social epistemology is dominated by the concerns of the majority.
Does “winning” mean achieving your “true” values, or does it just mean succeeding at doing something you’re trying to do? In the former case, equating “quality of life” to “winning” sneaks in the assumption that people are egoists (and don’t care about quantity of life).
Funnily enough, I was just thinking about why I personally don’t subscribe to full-on altruism towards all of humanity, and the answer that came to mind was “it just isn’t rewarded strongly enough to be worth it”
Nicely circular.
Indeed… one’s subconscious is good at circular logic.
That the post is explicitly titled “tragedy of the commons”, suggests the position that on the net people are worse off with taking the selfish path, and that current incentives create a problem.
Most people are egoists in the relevant sense—just look at the consumption of luxury goods in the west whilst poor people starve in Africa. Some people may aspire to altruism, but social epistemology is dominated by the concerns of the majority.