The Prisoner's Dilemma and Objective/Subjective Morality

[RobbyPants]

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.

[dyresand]

All moral is subjective.
Objective morality doesn't exist unless there is a god and proven to be one
then all morality is subjective.

[RobbyPants]

All moral is subjective.
Objective morality doesn't exist unless there is a god and proven to be one
then all morality is subjective.

Well, yes, but that doesn't stop the theists from claiming otherwise.

[simplemoss]

Your mistaken the "Mafia don" is a psychopathic serial killer he "rules over" his band of psycho elitist scumbags simply because he is crazier then them.

Because you used the word "mafia" should i assume your referring too italy??

[Ryantology]

Objective morality doesn't exist even if a god does. The existence of God just adds one more subjective opinion to the mix. That this God has the power to enforce his version of morality doesn't make it objective.

[dyresand]

Objective morality doesn't exist even if a god does. The existence of God just adds one more subjective opinion to the mix. That this God has the power to enforce his version of morality doesn't make it objective.

If god existed he can put you under subjective morals saying you cannot do this or that. making objective morals for humans because god said so or if you do not follow it you get a swift smiting. but even still i agree with you there will be moral things that us as humans wont agree with god and we would say we don't like it we won't listen.

[robvalue]

It all depends on what you define morality to mean. I've tried to get theists to define it, and not one of them ever has.

The only thing I've heard them say is "What God says is moral." In other words, it's meaningless. It's a tautology. If they won't define it outside of God, then there's no point even discussing it. God can call something moral, but that doesn't make it "good" in any way.

This is a common problem. Get theists to define their shit or else they just slip and slide around all day.

[RobbyPants]

Because you used the word "mafia" should i assume your referring too italy??

Picture more of "stand in for God". It worked well when using the metaphor of a prison.

Objective morality doesn't exist even if a god does. The existence of God just adds one more subjective opinion to the mix. That this God has the power to enforce his version of morality doesn't make it objective.

I agree that it still wouldn't be objective (unless they take the unusual stance that morality is even higher than God, in which case: where did it come from?). Still, that doesn't stop theists from complaining about moral relativism and assuming that someone stronger than them telling them what to do "solves" this problem.

[Natachan]

I tend to argue that theist morality isn't truly "objective" morality, it's simply authoritarian. Let's say that instead of saying that he'll punish squealers, your don says all of his gang members have to wear purple bow ties. Is it immoral for his gang members to wear pink ties?

But with god it gets more tangled. What of he says it's wrong to snitch in some situations, but you must snitch if the cop is wearing orange pants?

[dyresand]

I tend to argue that theist morality isn't truly "objective" morality, it's simply authoritarian. Let's say that instead of saying that he'll punish squealers, your don says all of his gang members have to wear purple bow ties. Is it immoral for his gang members to wear pink ties?

But with god it gets more tangled. What of he says it's wrong to snitch in some situations, but you must snitch if the cop is wearing orange pants?

Its not true authoritarian they would need to prove god exists first so they can say there is a higher authority.