Thank you. Byrnes’ work helps, but it makes a complementary point: it focusses on implementation of instincts into brains (points 1 and 2 in my post) rather than steering cooperation by implementing different social settings, which are best explained from the outside (point 3, which I suggest should get more attention).
For humans, we work on all three layers, because leaving out one creates problems. Educating (or brainwashing) everyone to be Rightfully Good is hard and often ineffective—the methods themselves contradict the ideals they claim to propagate, so students would often mimic their superiors’ practice rather than internalise their lessons. Even when moral education works, a fixed ethos is limited in scope. Good hearted people get Goodharted when context changes, they end up killing in the name of love unless there is some sort of social control. The latter requires rough parity between agents that control each other—but stability extends to inferiors too, see my other reply to @IanWS.
Thank you. Byrnes’ work helps, but it makes a complementary point: it focusses on implementation of instincts into brains (points 1 and 2 in my post) rather than steering cooperation by implementing different social settings, which are best explained from the outside (point 3, which I suggest should get more attention).
For humans, we work on all three layers, because leaving out one creates problems. Educating (or brainwashing) everyone to be Rightfully Good is hard and often ineffective—the methods themselves contradict the ideals they claim to propagate, so students would often mimic their superiors’ practice rather than internalise their lessons. Even when moral education works, a fixed ethos is limited in scope. Good hearted people get Goodharted when context changes, they end up killing in the name of love unless there is some sort of social control. The latter requires rough parity between agents that control each other—but stability extends to inferiors too, see my other reply to @IanWS.