Moral Game Theoreticism Summary

Moral Game Theoreticism Summary

Philosophic "thrownness" injects us into an agent-arena relationship with the game of reality. Games have inherent "oughts" nested into their structure. By virtue of existing within the game, those axiomatic "oughts" are applied to us. We can either find the best ways to accomplish those goals (moral actions) or find lesser ways to accomplish those goals (immoral actions).

Just like there are objectively good ways to play the game of chess, there are objectively good ways to play the game of life. In the game of chess the goal is domination, so moves that make domination more likely are objectively better moves. In the game of life the goal is existence, so actions that make existence more likely are objectively better.

Just like "philosophy" can mean the entire body of philosophic thought, or a personal instance of philosophic thought, "morality" can mean both the entire body of moral thought, or a personal instance of moral thought.

I think of instances of morality as a pattern of rules for accomplishing moral goals. Unconscious moralities are those rules that are biological. Conscious moralities are those rules that exist in brains. Different brains may have different moralities - different patterns of rules. Only the most game theoretically optimal moral patterns will win the game of life. Hence there is a hierarchy to the quality of a moral pattern, based on its ability to continue to exist into the future via optimal game theoretic strategies. A moral pattern that assists existence more than others is a morally-superior morality, since the goal of morality is existence.

The game of life rests upon the foundational axiom "I ought to exist" as existence is the essence of the game of life. All other moral ideas emerge as strategies for satisfying this foundational ought. Because collectivism is superior individualism, "I ought to exist" evolves into "we ought to exist". Actions that sabotage collective existence are hence objectively immoral since they go against the evolutionary telos of morality.

Morality supervenes* on meta-wellbeing, which supervenes on game theory, which supervenes on evolution, which supervenes on nature. Morality depends on meta-wellbeing in such a way that if the nature of meta-wellbeing changes, then morality changes. Meta-wellbeing depends on game theory in such a way that if the nature of game theory changes, the nature of meta-wellbeing changes. Game theory depends on evolution in such a way that if the nature of evolution changes, then game theory changes. Evolution depends on nature in such a way that if the nature of nature changes, then evolution changes.

*Supervene Defined:

1. occur later than a specified or implied event or action, typically in such a way as to change the situation.

2. (of a fact or property) be entailed by or consequent on the existence or establishment of another.

3. <object1> depends on <object2> in such a way that changes in <object2> would effect changes in <object1>

4. phenomenologically dependent in an emergent way, such that the existence of one causes the existence of the other to emerge