Jim D says:
>Someone already pointed out that GT need not involve individualism
>or profit-maximizing or egoism. One can apply altruism in making
>decisions in the game.
Isn't altruism a dialectical twin of individualism? The concept of
"altruism" emerged in the English language in the mid-19th century,
according to the OED. The word is used in attempts to explain why an
individual cares (or should care) about anyone besides himself at
all. In other words, under capitalism, regard for others emerged as
a "problem" in need of an ethical, philosophical, or scientific
explanation, whereas in the world before capitalism (= the world
where individualism as we know it didn't exist) no one taxed his
brains trying to come up with philosophical or biological reasons why
one should care about others, because it was taken for granted --
part of social institutions -- that one did. So it seems to me that
whether actors are conceived as profit-maximizing or behaving
altruistically, Game Theory is about individuals and their choices in
the world of Scarcity & Opportunity Costs (as conceived in
neoclassical economics).
Are game theorists interested in changing the game at all? I doubt
it. If we start with atomized individuals trying to survive (or help
other individuals survive) in the world as it exists now, it seems to
me that _as isolated individuals_, we -- or at least most of us, very
"altruistic" ones perhaps excepted -- don't find it in our (or other
individuals') "interest" to exert much efforts & take risks in trying
to bring about an alternative to capitalism. Working for radical
social change doesn't "pay," and we don't need Game Theory to tell us
what common sense can teach us. Struggling for the abolition of
capitalism (or any radical social movement, for that matter) only
"makes sense" when we don't start with atomized individuals.
Therefore, if Game Theory isn't "reactionary," it is at least very
conservative.
Now, here's what appeared in Randy Cohen's column "The Ethicist" in
the New York Times Sunday Magazine (6.18.00):
***** Q. I teach business ethics for a local university. I wonder
how you would respond to this classic moral dilemma: John walks into
a village and finds Mary holding 15 people hostage. Mary says that
she will kill them all unless John takes a gun and kills one of the
hostages. All of the hostages are innocent people. What should John
do?
-- J. De Pauw, Arlington, VA.
A. What kind of business are you preparing these kids for? Microsoft? *****
Isn't Game Theory at bottom as silly as the "classic moral dilemma"
described above?
Yoshie
