No, “agent” is just the name in game theory for the independent actors in the game.
No, I think you are framing “morals” as an agent. Why else would you assign a cost to them?
People innately know that acting “morally” is as much a benefit to them as it is to everyone. Thus no cost!
And that is Innately. It’s not even thought out most of the time. It just “is”. That’s social behavior dynamics.
Nothing costs anything.
Lots of behaviors have nothing to do with morality.
Yes but all morals are based on behavior.
How do you define “make the social group work’? I define it as increasing the benefits of cooperation, the chief benefit of living in a society.
Absolutely not. There has to be tensions. There has to be certain levels of competition and violence. Some may subjectively see this as immoral, but it’s not.
It’s the balance. It’s human behavior. It’s about cooperation, yes. But not increasing the level of cooperation. If it was about increasing the level, then by now we would have already lived in a Utopia since the stone ages.
“Costly cooperation strategies” are strategies in game theory that expose the initiating agent to exploitation. Unacted on morals don’t cost anything. But to act morally must be costly, in some sense at least in the short term, or it would not be admirable. And yes, morality is a force for good.
I can already tell I don’t like “game theory” whatever that is.
I will counter with this: If it cost anything then it would have withered on the evolutionary vine eons ago.
Get rid of this “cost” meme. That leads nowhere. It’s obvious what the impetus is behind that. It suggests numbers, and calculations, and possible ways to reduce costs. It suggests “oughts” and things I can’t even explain right now. I can’t think of it right now.
It’s contrived. It’s trying to put value on completely automatic actions. It suggests deficits.
So “Dog eat Dog” is an enforced moral code in some society, meaning people who refuse to act this way are thought to deserve punishment? What society is this?
No, I don’t know where I said that. It’s not enforced. It’s not what we would label moral either. But it is just as powerful as the behaviors we would label as moral.
“Dog eat Dog” does describe a kind of behavior, and can eve be expected behavior in a culture (and therefore a “norm”), but it has nothing to do with morality.
Sure it does. What “moral” actions could we exert if there was no “dog eat dog”?
What if your morality includes running planes into buildings or other forms of mass murder or burning people at the stake?