Monday
30Mar2009

A pure altruism?

DateMonday, March 30, 2009 at 1:02PM

Pure altruism cannot survive for long in the evolutionarily ancient milieu. The reasoning behind this is decisive: altruists, in helping others, waste precious (energy) resources that the non-altruist will be channeling into reproductive activities, so that, over time, the altruist will be bred out of a closed society. Let’s call this “pure active altruism”: altruism in which one actively exerts herself in order to help another. This energy differential is all important in the breeding scenario, and thus has led  to the establishment of reciprocal altruism as the only evolutionarily stable strategy. But what about a “passive” type of pure altruism (an altruism I discovered recently while exploring game theory)? Consider the following matrix in a non-iterated sequential game in which C moves first:

C, moving first, is indifferent. If he goes with C1 or C2 he will either get one or two “utils” based on what R does. R, on the other hand can get three utils if C plays C1, but only one if C plays C2. C, of course knows this, and thus knows that he is not going to get two, since this would be a sacrifice (or a tremble) on R’s part, which is against all odds. So C is resigned to getting one. Knowing this, does he play C1 or C2?

C is indifferent because this is not a competition (there is no “winner”); all each player desires is to maximize his own outcome. Thus, it would be an altruistic move on C’s part to play C1 rather than C2, for C1 gives R two extra utils without sacrificing anything of value for C. In evolutionary terms, there is no expenditure of energy on C’s part; he’s going to get one util no matter what. 

How might this translate into everyday life? Here’s a trivial example. Suppose you have a piece of furniture that you no longer want. It’s not in great shape (ruling out selling it): it’s old and the cat has used it as a scratching post. Suppose also it’s springtime and the area you live in has a spring cleanup when you can put out all your old junk and have it carted off for free once a year. This pickup is scheduled for tomorrow morning. Here are your choices: 1) you can carry the chair out in the morning and have it carted off to the landfill, or 2) you can wait until the next day and put it out on the side of the road with a “free” sign attached (or advertise it for free in the want ads). All things being equal, you can’t sell it and either option rids you of something you no longer want, the second option is the passive altruistic option.

Pure passive altruism would never be passed on to future generations since, by definition, it brings you no benefit (other than maybe a feel-good). This is the point of stipulating it as a non-iterated game; we are supposing no one will say, “What a nice gesture that was! Let’s do something nice in return!” Which makes this a pure kind of altruism which could very well have existed in primitive societies, possibly predating reciprocal altruism. (Theoretically, if we iterate this passive altruism it may have led to reciprocal altruism.)

If nothing else, this pure passive altruism game might serve as a test to see whether or not a person is someone you would like to be around; a sort of “kindness” test. I’m reminded of a rule on how to determine whether a person would be a good business partner (based on a story told by Steve Odland, CEO of Office Depot): take them to lunch and watch how they treat the wait staff!

AuthorDavid G. Payne | CommentPost a Comment | |
tagged , in ,
Monday
23Mar2009

On Being Right... (part 1)

DateMonday, March 23, 2009 at 11:53AM

I think one of the least attractive aspects of major religions is probably the one that helped them get to their top slot status, namely, an overriding emphasis on being right. Without the certainty involved in being right, doubt creeps in, and with doubt, tolerance, and tolerance is not an empire-building quality when it comes to thought realms. Part of the darkness of the dark ages was due to the church’s war against curiositas, the source of endless middle age allegories and sermonettes. For example: “we are to be as Odysseus’ men, who filled their ears with wax rather than be seduced by the sirens of secular philosophy.” Odysseus was always the enemy in these sermons; he was just too damned curious! Curiosity is that niggling need to know within us that seeks explanations for what we see and do in the world. It bubbles forth automatically from the well-spring of our cranium and it must be restrained if certainty is to reign. 

Faith is the muzzle of curiosity, the brainchild behind certainty, for it obliterates doubt before it has a chance to inculcate its insidious essence virus-like into our brains. Doubt whispers, “That makes no sense…” and faith then does the in-your-face door slam, wiping away all doubt. With doubt confined, certainty blossoms. How would it not? And with certainty, an ideology gains a manifest destiny to propagate itself, meme-like, unto the ends of the earth.

AuthorDavid G. Payne | CommentPost a Comment | |
Monday
16Mar2009

Return to Potlatch...

DateMonday, March 16, 2009 at 8:55AM

Thanks to Zuska for disseminating the story of the $20,000 dog house. She makes her moral point by comparing this to her mother’s assisted living abode. But the dog house is merely the tip of the iceberg. John McCain evidently has seven homes (he couldn’t recall the exact number), and there are “summer people” where I live who build $5+ million homes on the lakefront, which they occupy less than two months of the year. I don’t personally think anyone has a moral obligation to give away their money, but that does not mean we shouldn’t look down on those who could but don’t. To borrow an analogy from Judith Thomson: It is unjust if two brothers jointly receive a box of chocolates and one brother eats all of them and gives the other nothing. It is not unjust if the one brother receives the box of chocolates as a present and then eats them all in front of his sibling, but it is unkind, uncaring, and unconscionable.

I’ve often wondered whether people like this might suffer from a form of psychopathy; they are psychopaths who are very good at processing social information and thus are able to redirect their antisocial desires in a non-criminal, though certainly not moral, way. I know most of these people don’t intend harm to their fellow human beings. They are simply going mindlessly about their business, feeding their own greedy selves instead of helping those who could be helped. But they have no empathy, a basic moral emotion. As for cluelessness, there are aspects of society we are obligated to think about if we are to maintain a moral position. I find the guy in the Hummer with the “Poor People Suck” bumper sticker more tolerable than those who have never even considered the poor.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the rich competed with each other to see who could give the most to charity, rather than who can buy the biggest boat, the largest house or the most expensive car? Remember the potlatch of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest where, according to some, chieftains gave away their wealth in order to increase their status? We need to reinvent the potlatch as a substitute for status-seeking pissing contests. The big shots can then perform according to handicap-principle standards, stotting and screeching and fanning their tail feathers for all to see, and at the same time benefit the less fortunate! Sure, they might get the pick of the available spouses, but sexual selection ain’t what it used to be!

I’m no advocate of worldwide wealth redistribution. I know the world is unfair. I’m not asking you who conspicuously consume not to buy new homes or new cars, not to save for the future or send your kids to the best boarding schools and private colleges. I’m not even suggesting you forego that $5 million summer home. I’m merely suggesting you make it a $4 million home and do some good in the world with the rest. 

AuthorDavid G. Payne | CommentPost a Comment | |
tagged in ,
Friday
13Mar2009

Evolving Christianity...

DateFriday, March 13, 2009 at 8:58PM

I generally have a significant number of students in my classes who label themselves “creationists.” I could simply ignore them and teach from the evolutionary standpoint, but this in-your-face approach only alienates, while I prefer to engage. So I have adopted a different strategy: I address them directly and attempt to show why they should believe in evolution despite their religious beliefs (and then proceed to teach from the evolutionary standpoint). I have had some success with this method. 

There are those who may frown upon such a method, claiming it gives credence to Intelligent Designers. Yes, it does; but I see ID as the first step toward evolution, and, to give a hat tip to Hegel here, one must often believe falsehoods in order to be led to the truth. So put aside worries and tell me what you think of the approach.

Here is my thesis: taking a stance against a received scientific position will always be detrimental to Christianity. The position I have in mind is Evolution, but it should apply to many more. There are at least three reasons why many Christians are adamantly against evolution: 

1) The theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. 

Well, yes, it does, but the literal vs figurative debate is a debate on par with angels dancing on pinheads. Christians waste their time with such minutia, unless you think you have to live your life according to the rules of the Old Testament (and no one does, except those who stone their neighbors for not honoring the sabbath, sequester their wives and daughters when they menstruate, etc.). 

2) The theory of evolution contradicts the idea that God created the universe. 

Not necessarily. There are many ways of allowing a creator into the theory of evolution, from starting the process to guiding its progress.  

3) The theory of evolution contradicts the idea that God exists.  

This leads us to the heart of the matter. My approach says: if anything within a scientific theory turns out to contradict the tenets of Christianity, just claim it to be a mystery. This is, after all, where faith comes in. The Christian should say: “No matter what evidence is unearthed in favor of evolution theory, I will continue to believe in God.” (Not “I will continue to believe in creationism.”) When the Copernican theory first threatened the Ptolemaic which was embraced by Christianity, many theologians held that acceptance of the Copernican view was diametrically opposed to Christianity itself, but time proved them wrong. The Copernican theory was eventually embraced and Christianity adapted. Christianity will also adapt to evolution. Christians should allow scientists to do science, and blithely believe anything that becomes part of the Standard Scientific Viewpoint, even if it seems to contradict God’s existence, because the Christian “knows” (by faith) that it doesn’t; that God exists, and nothing will threaten that belief. 

I see children raised in Christian homes who are forced to disavow a major scientific position, which is embraced by and interconnected with hundreds of other fields. This means they will never get a job or have an influence in mainstream science anywhere in the world. A Christian who believes the world was created 4-10,000 years ago will never do serious work in plate tectonics, paleontology, astronomy, geophysics, etc., all of which have long ago accepted that the world is billions of years old. If you are an adamant opponent of evolution theory because you are afraid accepting it would require you to no longer believe in God, then you simply lack faith in God.

Prehistoric humans may have believed in gods because these beliefs explained the unexplainable, but this is no longer why most people believe. That ancient rationale falls under what the German theologian Bonhoeffer once called the “god of the gaps.” Your god is a god of the gaps if you use him to fill in the gaps that science has not yet explained. This is a dangerous rationale for belief, because as science fills in the gaps one by one your rationale for believing in god dissipates. All too many Christians unconsciously hold a god of the gaps position, which explains why they are so insistent on denying evolution. True faith in god demands that no one need deny established scientific positions. Your faith in god should be impervious to such and to take a stand against evolution is to say that you lack faith--that if we let evolution become accepted, then God is in danger. I don’t think God is worried. Should you be?

AuthorDavid G. Payne | Comment4 Comments | |
tagged , , in , ,
Tuesday
10Mar2009

On Plagiarism...

DateTuesday, March 10, 2009 at 4:20PM

A colleague stormed into my office the other day waving papers in my face. “You won’t believe this!” she huffed, showing me an essay with a student’s name at the top. I knew where this was going. “Okay, now look at this,” and she put before me an identical essay pulled via Google from an internet site. I asked what punishment she had meted out. “I failed him,” she said smugly, “for the course, and I turned his name in to the Dean’s office.” I probably should have kept my mouth shut, but didn’t. “Why?” I queried. She gave me a horrified look. “It’s dishonest. It’s an affront to scholarship... It's, it's...” blah blah blah...  

I’m sure you’ve heard all the good reasons why plagiarism is deplorable, but seriously, is it that deplorable? I don’t like it myself, but when confronted with a plagiarist many academics act as if they’ve just cornered Joseph Mengele. Let’s grant that plagiarism is wrong; why is it considered despicable? Here are some of the answers I’ve gotten to this question.

1. Because it is dishonest. 

Yes it is, but mere dishonesty doesn’t merit the approbation plagiarism does. From an academic point of view, students lie to me all the time. Who hasn’t been told about a printer breaking down or a computer crashing (the modern equivalent of the dog eating an assignment)? One student of mine had three of his grandmothers die within weeks of each other. But even if we find out these are lies, we don’t get morally incensed. 

2. Because it penalizes honest students. 

How? By raising the bar and making everyone else look bad? First, you can’t very well use this objection once you catch the student because once you know they are plagiarizing it no longer makes others look bad. Second, no professor buys this. When I grade an essay, I always do so with an ideal essay in mind. This is why cheaters usually stand out--their papers are unusually good. Maybe the point here is that the plagiarist, if successful, is getting a good grade without having to do the work. But really smart students do this all the time. I have some students that have to work three or four times as hard as others to get the same grade, but I don't get incensed over the difference in genetics.

3. Because it degrades academic standards, degrees and institutions. 

Surely you jest! I can understand how it might do this if the school condoned the behavior, but no school does. If it does do these things then the institution deserves to be degraded! We aren’t talking about lying to the public or stealing or other sorts of motivations that might occur along with plagiarism in a public setting, for instance, when someone is awarded a pulitzer prize on the basis of misinformation. As we like to say: the plagiarist in school is mainly hurting herself.

4. Because it may cause a negative impact on professional standards if students are not learning the required topics properly. 

Well, maybe; but if students plagiarize that much, I doubt they will ever get into a position where they could do this kind of damage. Let’s face it, the serious professionals simply didn’t plagiarize.  

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like plagiarism, and I won’t take a paper that has been plagiarized or allow cheating on exams, but I’m not going to “go moral” on  someone who does and try to ruin their future. There’s an old saying in academia that the best textbooks are never used in classes... because they are used by professors to prepare for classes! So he who is without sin... and all that. 

AuthorDavid G. Payne | CommentPost a Comment | |
tagged , in
Tuesday
10Mar2009

Bedsmokers & Foreclosures

DateTuesday, March 10, 2009 at 2:30PM

I was listening to NPR the other day and heard a discussion concerning the taxpayer bailout of mortagees who were in trouble. The argument against this is, of course, why should taxpayers bail out those who were fiscally inept, who got into trouble by their own greed and bad judgment. The person on NPR defended the bailout against this objection with the following analogy (my paraphrase):

Suppose there is a person in your neighborhood who smokes in bed, and one day his house catches on fire. You could punish him by letting his house burn down, but suppose you live in a crowded neighborhood where the fire will easily spread to other homes as well. In such a case you should put your urge to punish aside to accomplish the greater good.

I thought at first this one of those instances where an analogy makes a really good point, but later I began to wonder. The analogy is complex. First, there are two hypotheticals: if the neighbor smokes in bed and if you live in a crowded subdivision. In the first, the bedsmoker is analogous to the mortgagee in relevant ways, i.e., both get into trouble due to their own questionable actions, the consequences of which should have been foreseen. The analogy is faulty by itself, though, because this alone won't sway us to accept the bailout. Calling the fire department is cheap, while bailing out the mortgagee is not. If we knew that by calling the fire department we were going to be billed for their firefighting efforts, we would probably think twice about calling. Thus, the second hypothetical is necessary in order to make the damage broad enough to insure we will call the fire department. 

But the second hypothetical is also problematic. If we live in a crowded subdivision, then the bedsmoker's house fire threatens all of our houses, so we must call it in to protect ourselves if not our fellow neighbors. So what exactly is the analogy? The other houses in the subdivision are analogous to the entire economy, which means the claim is that allowing homes to be foreclosed will further damage the economy, and this justifies the bailout (calling the fire department). Since this analogy depends on the prior one in which calling the fire department is cheap, it is resting on a shaky foundation. When we factor in the cost of the bailout, maybe it's not such a good idea. The analogy is also shaky because it assumes that the fire threatens MY house and the houses of other homeowners who are not in financial difficulty. But this isn't obvious. Granted, if we end up in a full-fledged depression then we may also be hurt, but it isn't obvious that bailing out mortagees who are in trouble will prevent this, or that there isn't a better way to spend taxpayer money in order to prevent this. 

I wouldn't mind agreeing to call the fire department, even if it was charged to me, if I was guaranteed repayment by the bedsmoker in the future for having performed this service. If we're going to make this analogy work, then maybe we should have some similar guarantees from mortgagees. After all, we're not giving money to banks and auto-makers, we're taking stock in their company or demanding future repayment. Thus making the cases more analogous demands a policy change. 

AuthorDavid G. Payne | CommentPost a Comment | |
tagged , , in , ,
Tuesday
10Mar2009

On Killing Hermits...

DateTuesday, March 10, 2009 at 2:29PM

Why is it wrong to kill another person? The answer "just because" comes to mind, but that, of course won't do... I love this question because it raises so many more, and its tendrils reach out into so many contemporary moral issues. It also won't do to say "It's wrong to kill because god said so" or "because life is sacred" for the same question arises: Why? Then there is the golden rule approach: we shouldn't kill others because we don't want them to kill us (I use this prudential version of the rule because on the traditional version: do unto others... I want to ask, again, Why?). This might do, but I'm not sure it captures the morality of the injunction in individual cases.

Enter the hermit, that sublime hypothetical human, orphaned from birth, who lives alone in the woods, never plans to have interaction with any other human, has no family, no friends, and is content with himself alone. You stumble across his abode while lost in the woods one day and he grudgingly allows you to stay the night. Would it be wrong for you to kill him? No one else will be harmed, no one will mourn, no children or parents or pets will suffer, he's not going to discover the cure for cancer, and no friends are going to search you out and kill you in revenge, nor will the police for that matter.

The crucial point in the question of killing which is brought out most clearly by the hermit thought experiment is this: Everyone agrees that you can build a case for the wrongness of killing around Harm, i.e., you can argue that harming an innocent person is wrong, to kill an innocent person is to harm them... The hard point here is: how does killing someone harm them? (for we can easily suppose that we kill the hermit painlessly). Once they are dead, they can't be harmed (can they?), and the hermit example removes all other external factors. So why is it wrong to kill hermits?

Don Marquis has a beautifully simple answer to why it is wrong to kill. It is wrong because it takes away what is most valuable to an individual, viz., their future. Not that this approach is without its own problems. If you take something from someone that they will never (in principle) miss, have you done them wrong?

AuthorDavid G. Payne | CommentPost a Comment | |
tagged , in ,