“Life must be lived forward, but it can only be undersood

backwards.”

Soren KiekegaardDanish 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 self-evident 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 self-love…a healthy esteem for one’s self and realistic concern for one’s well-being.

• 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 zero-sum game--me against them conflicts--where one person’s gain comes at the expense of another person’s loss. Self-interest, 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 Self-Interest, 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 Confess Don’t 1 = free 1 = free Confess 2 = free 2 = 10 years (a sucker)Prisoner 2 1 = 10 years 1 = 8 years Confess 2 = free 2 = 8 years (a sucker)

• “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 Tutu1999

Speaking at UK Convocation commemorating 50 years of African-Americans being a part of the University community.