The Prisoner’s Dilemma and The Evolution of Morality

[Philosophy Now]

Brian King seeks the possible evolution of morality through computer simulations.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Th ... f_Morality

[Scott Mayers]

Good article. I think that this subject requires investigating into more complexity involving other factors like how imprinting upon early development comes into play, though. Genetics and environment are too interwoven to simplify any model that credits only one of them uniquely. Genetically, I think that if a species survives environmentally quick changes, this contributes to a culture that bonds the groups that experience them to each other. If the group's culture maintains this and continues to also survive in constant environmental changes, both genetic survival and cultural (environmental) factors make the group's members become more altruistic amongst each other. However, I think that this also contributes to make these beings contrast greater to those outside these groups less altruistically.

Humans evolved to be able to survive multiple environmental changes AND with cultural enhancements. This makes us both more altruistic towards in-groups and more 'selfish' with regards to these groups as a whole. The more beneficially rewarding groups have more 'trust' among themselves, favor themselves more while those who struggle more in environments dominated by the former will tend to be more isolated even among themselves and become less trustworthy of others.

Another component involves consistency/inconsistency. The more inconsistent wins that one experiences over losses, they act with more inconsistency and gamble more frequently. This creates more isolation of the people in those groups that suffer more (lack general benefits) because individuals don't have sufficient trust in anyone; It creates more cohesion of the people in the beneficial groups where such inconsistency leads to those who gain with extreme wins and where the 'losers' have still not lost so much to have been pushed out of the beneficial group they belonged to.

That is, selfishness favors those who have a position, whether from environmental predisposition to belong to a favored group [like a wealthier class of some culturally common identity] OR to have independent genetic advantages [like a bear or lion]. Selfishness disfavors groups on the bottom of environmental or genetic privilege by contrast. People within a 'ghetto', for instance, struggle for such essential survival that selfish acts violate the trust between each other more. The 'selfish' in such impoverishment often have to conspire in 'gangs' in order to gain power in their communities.

Basically, selfishness favors those in beneficial classes as long as the culture of that benefiting class is altruistic and predictable of members of that class as a whole; Altruism favors those in non-beneficial classes where the culture of the non-benefiting class is selfish and unpredictable of members of that class as a whole. This makes both selfishness and altruism contradictory functions of necessary survival and cannot be used as determining factors independently to determine conclusions about morality. So we have to default to accept that genetics favors both but are based on selfish replicating genes 'fitting' with the favor or disfavor of the environments we are born into and adapt to.

[HaHaHa]

In a prison there is no morality or ethics involved. There are only commands, ultimatums, and requirements often enough enforced for survival.

There are only commanders, guards, prisoners, and rebels.