[ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths, or Confused/Moody

[Lee Corbin]

Harvey wrote
(Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:14 PM)


> On Monday 01 September 2008 01:27:49 Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Why would one *ever* be fair? Or adopt "fairness" as a standard behavior?
> 
> Because that is the whole basis of the free market and the exchange of money 
> for services.  I want to participate in this type of transaction.  To not play 
> fair would be to reject the whole concept of a free-market system, and revert 
> to a dog-eat-dog world where the strongest take things from the weak.

This is extremely principled of you. I not only admire that, but I emulate it.
However, you beg the question I'm asking: to wit, why should one even
be principled? I am afraid that you also either consciously or unconsciously
mixing in a Kantian imperative "do as you would have everyone else do".
But the fact of the matter is that you could change your behavior, become
utterly unprincipled (in cases only where you aren't caught, of course), 
and it would change no one else's behavior!  (In reality, I don't think 
that this is exactly the case, but let's say that the behavior of fewer than
a hundred people in the world would change as a result, but I want to
steer clear of an identity argument right now.)

There can be many people, Harvey, who would also believe as you do
of the necessity of the free market and exchange of money to progress
and prosperity, and they would never "reject the whole concept of a
free-market system" either---it's just that such an individual would leave
it to the rest of us "suckers" to carry on, while he or she violates every
principle that can be gotten away with.

> Even if I thought I could steal them more efficiently than buying 
> them, there would be less opportunities to do so in an environment
> where merchants regularly got shortchanged.

Yes, but I'm saying that you could steal without causing everyone
else to do so, and so hurt our progress and prosperity only
infinitesimally and maximizing your own personal gain.

>> I see no necessary self-interest component to being fair to others, even
>> though in most situations indeed there is. Surely the answer is at least
>> in part genuine altruism.
> 
> It sounds like you understand my answer, but you don't believe it.  Trust me, 
> I don't care to give away my money for free to strangers I will never see again.

Actually so? You wouldn't leave a tip in a restaurant you were
certain never to visit again? I had inferred from the preceding
that you would.

> But I am a good tipper at my local establishments that I frequent, and 
> they treat me like an extra special guest whenever they see me.  I am buying 
> that kind of service and think my money is well spent.  I am not giving them 
> charity.
> 
> ...
>> Because they do not genuinely have any feelings or emotions or
>> any personal thoughts whatsoever, as I said. This cold distant
>> entity is going to be [not at all] affected by your responses...
> 
> Let me change my response to this one.  I thought you were talking about AIs 
> with "simulated" feelings versus "real" feelings.  Since your question 
> involved discovering that the real world was full of simulated people, I was 
> assuming very advanced AIs with human-equivalent complexities.
> If you are literally talking about a video game character with no feelings, I 
> would not exert any effort toward their happiness.

Agreement here has been reached  :-)

>> Being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely altruistic, (though
>> this is a mere terminological point), because altruism is very often
>> explained in the literature as most often springing from self-interest.
> 
> You've lost me now.   I am not sure the term "altruism" is being used in a 
> consistent way, now that "being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely 
> altruistic" and "altruism... springing from self-interest".  The terms seemed 
> to have changed mid-stream and/or I am confused about what they mean now.

I'll refrain in this thread from now on from using the terms, since I
know far too well the futility of definitions. But I believe that I did
use "genuine altruism" throughout in a consistent manner. So what
we are talking about is *behavior that in no way ever conveys
a material reward to one*.

This "nice" behavior comes up rather infrequently in the course of
a day;  for example, although I've written a number of emails today
both here and at work, I don't think that even one of them was
not purely in my self-interest---whereas I may indeed before the
day is done actually do that (arrange something that may help
someone else even though it does me no particular good).

I observe that I would treat my friends almost exactly the same
way as I would in a completely simulated world orchestrated
by a feelingless puppet master, with me as the only experiencing
entity. (I would be just as nice to them as always, so that I
continued to receive the same benefits from them as I do).

Lee