Question 1
Game theory was defined to be a systematic way of interdependent rational choice. The theory may be used while explaining the concept of making predictions. When making an evaluation, the human behaviour in a given context depends on the outcomes of action related to several agents; they will prefer selecting a choice depending on what others will choose to do. The game theory is of great to ethics, and it is used in a variety of ways, in moral and political philosophy. The game theory is used in understanding situations where decision-makers interact.
By learning the concept of game theory in January and February reading, the knowledge acquired was useful to understand the function of morality. The theory is used in giving an outcome that may arise in case morality is absent, and when there are inferences about the remedial function of morality and the description was obtained from that description (Class notes (b), 2021). The next approach, which is essential is contractarianism, and it formalized the social contract theory by applying the game theory. The older traditions are in term while explaining what is used in political norms; this can be justified because rational agents have to agree with them under good conditions (McFall, 2014). Finally, the game theory, more particularly the evolutionary theory, is used while recovering most of the traditional practices or norms.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
While explaining the game theory, those involved in decision making may be animals, organizations, genes, or even robots. However, this theory has been criticized by many people arguing that it requires a lot of calculations of capabilities from the ordinary beings that are likely to use at most simple heuristics. In social interactions, the concept of rationality has to be enriched with assumptions about mutual knowledge and beliefs from individuals (Class notes (c), 2021). But these assumptions don't occur without consequences. Moreover, the real meaning of rationality can be understood after doing some learning and revisions on beliefs.
In my opinion, there are many self-interested reasons for being moral than are suggested by the game. Nowadays, most people can be quick to make changes to their moral values. But it depends on the rule that will favour them more than others (Class notes (b), 2021). However, the pursuit that is depended on self-interest is mostly tempered by the constraints that are likely to occur as a result of coordination (McFall, 2014). A large population ratio is ready to make decisions that will only benefit themselves and persuade people that they were morally upright in making the decision.
A social dilemma is one of the major conflicts that exist between self-interest and morality. This occurs where two people are facing two options. People often tend to cooperate when they lose money or price. They were to obtain from one of the options or even when there is a delay on the benefits of cooperation this is according to the reading on cooperation (Class notes (b), 2021). The simplest explanation that can explain this is that people tend to care about others for that type of cooperation. The fact that altruism affects others' goals is the best explanation that can be applied to explain this.
Another reason that may make people cooperate according to the reading on cooperation is a misunderstanding. For example, people may confuse casualty with correlation thinking that their collaboration is correlated with others' behaviours exhibited by others. Often, this appears to be true (Class notes (a), n.d). However, people may tend to generalize that they may be less important; this is according to the February reading. People may think that altruism will benefit them in a long run self-interest while still understanding that it may not do so in the short term (McFall, 2014). Thinking that they will get to reap the benefits of their altruistic behaviour, most people place their belief in altruism. Thus, many reasons exist for being moral other than the one suggested by the game.
Question 2
From Herman readings, he argues that the moral theory is continually suffering from epistemic difficulties. His main argument is that moral theories are epistemically problematic and cannot be confirmed and tested the same way scientific theories are tested. Herman admits that we can make assumptions while testing our general moral principle basing on our intuiting reactions (Class notes (d), 2021). But he argues that our test is biased as we are not testing based on the world. Thus, our test is incorrect related to moral sensibility or on our tactically kept moral views.
Initially, Herman was concerned with assumptions that may arise as a result of moral observations. While basing observations to be the primary mode that we can access the world, He questions if we can b test our moral theories against something more than the intuitive reactions that result from hypothetical cases (Class notes (b), 2021). In his question, he asks if moral theories can be tested using moral observations. He claims that all perceptions are theory-laden. Through his claims, he then presents the facts that we can apply while making observations. In observation, a belief formed directly through perceptual stimulation can cause an extremely liberal view (Class notes (d), n.d). Since moral matters may result from immediate perceptual beliefs, Herman maintains that these are moral observations.
Even though we all use his liberal sense of observations to make most of the moral observations, Herman has a strong belief that a nor difference that exists is between the use of observations and empirical science, this is when making inquiries about morals, this according to him makes moral observations not being enough to be used while providing evidence that concerns moral theory (Class notes (d), n.d). The difference that he is trying to put across is to explain the occurrence that occurred as a result of the observation that supports the scientific theory. You will be required to make assumptions about certain physical facts. But, according to him, your facts should not be based on moral facts to explain moral observations (Class notes (b), 2021). Basing on Herman’s view, a person’s observation has to confirm a theory, and thus a person must have to invoke the reality and truth of the theory.
What Herman concedes is that moral principles can explain moral intuitions or observations in the latter sense. However, this principle cannot test against the world since they can’t make explanations about a judgement and the explanations you gave while presenting your intuiting or observations (Class notes (d), n.d). Your observations may explain some certain theories, hance this can be referred to as an empirical theory. Thus, moral observations cannot explain moral theories since they can't explain your judging.
Thus, according to Herman, he argues that observation can only support a theory when the theory's truth is a part of the best explanation for the observations have occurred. However, without basing or referring to any reference to the facts of moral, we can conclude by explaining by just referring to our moral beliefs. Therefore, moral theories cannot be confirmed by making observations.
Reference
Class notes (a), (n.d). The Cooperation Game Strategy.
Class notes (b), (February 2 nd ). Answers on Morality.
Class notes (c), (January 28 th ). Notes on Personality Identity.
Class notes (d), (n.d). Herman Reading, The problem with Ethics.
McFall, L. (2014). Integrity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381289
