Transcript LIVING IN SOCIETY

“Life must be lived
forward, but it can
only be undersood
backwards.”
Soren Kiekegaard
Danish philosopher
1813-1855
LIVING IN SOCIETY
“How Can Humans Live In
A Society Where Everyone
Is Pursuing Their Personal
Best Interests Or Goals?”
Terminal Objective
• The dentist will choose to live
and work cooperatively with
others.
We Are Social Beings
“Man is by nature a political
animal.” (Aristotle) His term
“political “ is the synonymous
with our usage of the word
”social.” We are not hermits.
By nature we live in groups,
cooperating with one another in
some common work or
function.
• Morality, that discipline that
relates us to our world and other
individuals in our world, arose
when people came to
understand that ‘rules’ are
necessary for social living.
• What if there were …
–
–
–
–
–
no rules of morality?
no laws?
no police?
no courts?
no government?
LEVIATHAN*
Thomas Hobbes
1651
*A sea monster mentioned
in the Book of Job, where
it is associated with the
forces of chaos and evil.
Figuratively, any
enormous beast.
“THE STATE OF
NATURE”
(Thomas Hobbes)
1. Equality of Need
2. Scarcity
3. Essential Equality of Human Power
4. Self-Interest
Resultant:
A Constant State of War, of One
with All...”
Where:
“Life is Solitary, Poor, Nasty,
Brutish, and Short.”
Cooperation Is Essential...
To escape the “state of
nature” and to live, in an
ordered society (safe,
stable, predictable) where
we each can pursue the
realization of our potential;
our life’s goals.
Moral Rules Are the
Basis for Cooperation
Moral Rules
--Examples -• Don’t Cheat
• Don’t Deceive
• Don’t Deprive of Freedom or
Opportunity
• Don’t Kill
• Don’t Steal
• Et Cetera
Summarized: Don’t Cause Harm or Evil
“The law of nature…which
obliges everyone, and reason
which is law, teaches all
mankind who will but consult
it, that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to
harm another in his life,
health, liberty of possessions.”
John Locke
English philosopher
1632-1704
“We hold these truths to be selfevident that all men are created
equal; they are endowed by
their creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
1776
Concept of Justice
“… When a number of
persons engage in a mutually
advantageous cooperative
venture according to rules,
and thus restrict their liberty
in ways necessary to yield
advantages for all, those who
have submitted to these rules
have a right to similar
acquiescence on the part of
those who have benefited from
their submission.”
A Theory of Justice
John Rawls
Why Cooperate and
Keep the Moral Rules?
Self-Interest
• If we do not live by the moral
rules, treating others fairly or
justly, we cannot expect to gain
the benefits. If we make a habit
of doing harm or evil to others,
people will not be reluctant to
do harm or evil to us.
• This acknowledgment of the
value to ourselves of abiding by
the social contract with its
notion of moral rules is
traditionally referred to as
“enlightened self-interest.”
Self-Interest
versus
Selfishness
• According to Erich Fromm, the
prominent existential psychologist,
they are not the same, in fact, they
are opposites.
• Enlightened self-interest is selflove…a healthy esteem for one’s self
and realistic concern for one’s wellbeing.
• The selfish person does not esteem
and respect himself too much, but
rather too little.
Selfishness
• Lack of interest or care for self
leaves individuals empty and
frustrated. Unhappy and anxious,
they become concerned about
grabbing from life all they can.
While seeming to care too much for
themselves, it is actually an
unsuccessful attempt to compensate
for failure and to care too little for
the real self.
• The truly selfish person is incapable
of interest in others, because s/he is
not capable of a real interest in their
self.
“The selfish person is
perpetually engaged in a zerosum game--me against them
conflicts--where one person’s
gain comes at the expense of
another person’s loss. Selfinterest, in contrast, allows all
of the players to win.”
Mahoney and Restak
in The Longevity Strategy
Loving Self
• “. . . Love thy neighbor as
thyself.”
• “Do unto others as you would
have others do unto you.”
• These two precepts from the
Christian religion emphasize
that the standard for behaving
toward others is the standard of
our care and concern, love if
you will, for ourselves.
Ultimate Self-Interest Is
Determined By One’s
View of the Nature of
Human Existence
• Theistic - Salvation/Eternal Life
in another world
• Non-Theistic - Happiness in this
world
“The only passion natural
to man is the love of
himself, or self love,
understood in a broad, that
is, not mean sense.”
Jean- Jacques Rosseau
“The individual is most
likely to contribute to
social betterment by
rationally pursuing his
own best long-range
interest.”
The Morality of SelfInterest, Robert G. Olsen
“The more each person
strives and is able to seek
his profit (self-interest) …
the more virtue does he
possess; on the other hand,
in so far as each person
neglects his own profit
(self-interest) he is
impotent.”
Baruch Spinoza
“If I am not for myself. who will
be for me?
If I am for myself alone, what
am I?”
Rabbi Hillel
1st Century, B.C.
Reciprocity
• This notion of “ethical egoism”
is rooted in the notion of
reciprocity.
• We acknowledge that to gain
the greatest good for self, we
must negotiate a fair and justly
ordered society, grounded in
rules of cooperation.
Reciprocity
“Is there a single word such that
one could practice it
throughout life?” Confucius
replied, “Reciprocity…do not
inflict on others what you
yourself would not wish done
to you.”
Confucius
6th Century B.C.
The Golden Rule
Christianity
“Whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye
even so to them”
Jesus of Nazareth
First Century, A.D.
Sikhism
“Treat others as thou
wouldst be treated thyself.”
Sixteenth Century, A.D.
Confucianism
“What you don’t want done
to yourself, don’t do to
others.”
Sixth Century, B.C.
Buddhism
“Hurt not others with that
which pains thyself.”
Fifth Century, B.C.
Hinduism
“Do naught to others which if
done to thee would cause thee
pain.”
Mahabharata,
Third Century, B.C.
Judaism
“What is hateful to yourself,
don’t do to your fellow man.”
Rabbi Hillel,
First Century, B.C.
Jainism
“In happiness and suffering, as
in joy and grief, we should
regard all creatures as we
regard our own self, and
should therefore, refrain from
inflicting upon others such
injury as would appear
undesirable to us if inflicted
upon ourselves.”
Fifth Century, B.C.
Zoroastrianism
“Do not do unto others all
that which is not well for
oneself.”
Fifth Century, B.C.
Classical Paganism
“May I do to others as I
would that they should do
to me.”
Plato, Fourth Century, B.C.
“Let’s take a break!”
Game Time!
THE EVOLUTION OF
COOPERATION
Robert Axelrod
1984
The Prisoner’s
Dilemma
How Contemporary “Game
Theory” Supports
Reciprocity As A Moral
Principle
PRISONER’S
DILEMMA
(SINGER’S SCENARIO)
Prisoner 1
Don’t
Confess
Don’t Confess
1 = free
2 = free
Confess
1 = free
2 = 10 years
(a sucker)
1 = 10 years
2 = free
(a sucker)
1 = 8 years
2 = 8 years
Prisoner 2
Confess
• “Not to confess” is to cooperate with the other prisoner
by taking into account what is best for both.
• “To confess” is to defect, or to be purely self-interested.
Note: Not confessing results in less total (collective) evil
(years in jail) in all scenarios.
Points To Be Made
• It is rational for each to confess,
from a narrowly self-interested point
of view.
• But, if each does what is rational
from an unreflective and narrow
self-interest, they will each be worse
off than if they had chosen
differently.
• Enlightened reflective thought about
ultimate (or longer term self-interest)
leads to greater degrees of
cooperation and greater individual
good.
AXELROD’S TENETS:
• Cooperation can begin in a world of
self-interested individuals without
the aid of a central authority
(Government).
• Cooperation based on reciprocity
(I’ll not harm you if you won’t harm
me; and I’ll help you if you’ll help
me) will thrive and be stable
because it results in successful
societies.
• Cooperation, once established on the
basis of reciprocity, can protect itself
from less cooperative strategies.
Enforced Cooperation
(Government)
contrasted with
Biological Evolved
Cooperation
(Natural)
Biological Cooperation
Human being throughout our evolutionary
history have been social beings. Would
our ancestors be more likely to survive and
reproduce if they always act in accordance
for with their own immediate advantage?
Three key findings from the Prisoner’s
Dilemma suggest they would not have:
• In a group of animals all behaving “nicely”
(cooperatively), each would do well.
• In a group of “mean” (non-cooperating)
animals each would do poorly.
• And most importantly when some animals
are cooperative and others are not, the
“nice” (cooperative) ones would do well,
as long as they stop cooperating with the
“mean” (non-cooperating) animals as soon
as they discover they are “mean.”
Axelrod’s work indicates that cooperation
will spread through a group of humans, as
long as the individuals practice “tit for tat.”
Why? Because cooperation leads to
success of cooperators.
“Tit for Tat”
Foundation of
cooperation is not
trust, but the
durability of the
relationship.
Lessons of Cooperation
from
“The Prisoner’s Dilemma”
• Begin by being ready to cooperate:
“Be Nice.”
• Do good to those who do good to
you, and don’t cooperate with those
who do not cooperated with you:
“Tit for Tat”
• Keep it simple: “Life is not a zero
sum game.”
• Be forgiving: “Forgive and forget
the past.”
• Don’t be envious: Again, “Life is not
a zero sum game.”
“Societies evolve ethical (moral)
rules in order to make cooperation
more reliable and more durable.
The results benefit everyone in
society, both collectively and as
individuals.
Adapting an initially friendly and
cooperative stance, entering into
long-term relationships, but not
allowing oneself to be exploited,
being straightforward and open-avoiding envy..these are sound
recommendations for anyone
seeking a happy and fulfilling life
as a social being.”
Peter Singer
How Are We To Live
“The Tragedy of the
Commons”
In the Middle Ages, the archetypal
English village owned one common
field for grazing cattle. Every
villager shared “the common” and
was allowed to graze as many cattle
as he wanted. The result was that
the common was often overgrazed
until it could support only a few
cattle. Had each villager been
encouraged to exercise a little
restraint, the common could have
supported far more cattle than it did.
Tragedy…(continued)
This “tragedy” has been repeated
again and again throughout the
history of human affairs. Sea
fisheries that have been fished are
exploited and over-fished. Whales
and forests and aquifers have been
managed the same way.The tragedy
of the commons is, for economists, a
matter of ownership. The lack of a
single owner of the commons or the
fishery means that everyone shares
equally in the cost of overgrazing or
over-fishing.
Tragedy…(continued)
But the individual who grazes one
too many cows or the fisherman who
catches one too many netfuls still
gets the whole of the reward of that
cow or netful. So he reaps the
benefits privately and shares the
costs publicly. It is a one-way ticket
to riches for the individual and a
one-way ticket to poverty for the
village. Individually rational
behavior leads to a collectively
irrational outcome. The free-rider
wins at the expense of the good
citizen.
“For Whom The Bell
Tolls”
“No man is an island, entire of
itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a
clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a
promontory were as well as if a
manor of their friend’s or thine
own were: any man’s death
diminishes me, I am involved in
mankind, and therefore never send
to know for whom the bell tolls, it
tolls for thee.”
John Donne
“A solitary person is a
contradiction in terms. A person
is a person only through
another person.”
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
1999
Speaking at UK Convocation
commemorating 50 years of
African-Americans being a part
of the University community.