“Tit-for-tat is a better strategy than Cooperate-Bot.”
Can you use this premise in an explicit argument that expected reciprocation should be a factor in your decision to be nice toward others. How big a factor, relative to others (e.g. what maximises utility)? If there’s an easy link to such an argument, all the better!
If the problem you are trying to solve is how to motivate morality at the societal level, to a random bunch of people with varying preferences, then expected reciprocation is very important.
Under other assumptions, it isnt: for instance, forms of egoism, where you never risk any possible loss, and forms of altruism where only acts performed without expectation of reciprication are truly good.
Did you edit your original comment? When i first read it, I thought it was saying the opposite of what it now seems to say… I actually agree with it now—should is not universal, it depends on your goals.
P.S That paper you provide actually argues hedonism, not utlilitarianism :).
The simple explanation is that it it’s what should means. Beyond that, it would be helpful to have a more specific question..,whether you are questioning the rationality of morality,.or the morality of altruism ,. or whatever,
“Tit-for-tat is a better strategy than Cooperate-Bot.”
Can you use this premise in an explicit argument that expected reciprocation should be a factor in your decision to be nice toward others. How big a factor, relative to others (e.g. what maximises utility)? If there’s an easy link to such an argument, all the better!
If the problem you are trying to solve is how to motivate morality at the societal level, to a random bunch of people with varying preferences, then expected reciprocation is very important.
Under other assumptions, it isnt: for instance, forms of egoism, where you never risk any possible loss, and forms of altruism where only acts performed without expectation of reciprication are truly good.
Can you give an explicit argument for why you”should” maximize utility for everyone, instead of just for yourself?
Some people offer arguments—eg http://philpapers.org/archive/SINTEA-3.pdf - and for some people it’s a basic belief or value not based on argument.
Did you edit your original comment? When i first read it, I thought it was saying the opposite of what it now seems to say… I actually agree with it now—should is not universal, it depends on your goals.
P.S That paper you provide actually argues hedonism, not utlilitarianism :).
Not that I recall
The simple explanation is that it it’s what should means. Beyond that, it would be helpful to have a more specific question..,whether you are questioning the rationality of morality,.or the morality of altruism ,. or whatever,