I was thinking about objective and subjective morality earlier today, and I was thinking about the nature of an absolute moral giver and it made me think about the prisoner's dilemma. So, there are two general solutions to the prisoner's dilemma, depending on how you look at it. Well, it's a bit more complicated, but these two work nicely with the idea of subjective morality.
Always defect: If you act selfishly, you will minimize your losses and maximize your gains. This solution is obvious. It's a dick move, but obvious. If you don't know the other guy (or at least not well), it certainly seems like the safe route.
Always cooperate: This one is a bit more tricky. If you consider the two prisoners to be part of a larger group, always cooperating nets the smallest amount of time between the two of them, combined. This option is the clear winner if both sides trust each other sufficiently (hinting that they know each other or trust the other to act rationally in this regard).
So, when talking to someone prescribing to objective morality, one of their biggest complaints of moral relativism is that even in a group that is currently cooperating, there's nothing stopping someone from suddenly acting selfishly, ruining the whole thing. Now, this is technically true, but it's an over simplification. This behavior happens among those believing in absolute morality, as well, so it's not like their system is stopping this behavior, or anything.
Still, it made me think of a third option to the above two. It's the one that many theists allude to when complaining about moral relativism:
Mafia Don: There's a criminal with far-reaching connections who hates squealers. Any prisoner who defects gets whacked before he sees the light of day, so everyone plays nice.
Now, that's a compelling system (if you believe the Don exists and has any power over you), but it's not really a system of morality. It's just replacing the one selfish option with a different selfish option. And what's more funny: even in light of this option, you can still opt to cooperate without worrying about God the Don. You can still opt to be moral on your own without threat of force.
Reason number [I've lost count] why arrogant moral absolutists annoy me.
Always defect: If you act selfishly, you will minimize your losses and maximize your gains. This solution is obvious. It's a dick move, but obvious. If you don't know the other guy (or at least not well), it certainly seems like the safe route.
Always cooperate: This one is a bit more tricky. If you consider the two prisoners to be part of a larger group, always cooperating nets the smallest amount of time between the two of them, combined. This option is the clear winner if both sides trust each other sufficiently (hinting that they know each other or trust the other to act rationally in this regard).
So, when talking to someone prescribing to objective morality, one of their biggest complaints of moral relativism is that even in a group that is currently cooperating, there's nothing stopping someone from suddenly acting selfishly, ruining the whole thing. Now, this is technically true, but it's an over simplification. This behavior happens among those believing in absolute morality, as well, so it's not like their system is stopping this behavior, or anything.
Still, it made me think of a third option to the above two. It's the one that many theists allude to when complaining about moral relativism:
Mafia Don: There's a criminal with far-reaching connections who hates squealers. Any prisoner who defects gets whacked before he sees the light of day, so everyone plays nice.
Now, that's a compelling system (if you believe the Don exists and has any power over you), but it's not really a system of morality. It's just replacing the one selfish option with a different selfish option. And what's more funny: even in light of this option, you can still opt to cooperate without worrying about God the Don. You can still opt to be moral on your own without threat of force.
Reason number [I've lost count] why arrogant moral absolutists annoy me.
