Why Do We Act Morally? Using Game Theory as an Answer

Why we act morally is one of the most fundamental challenges facing humanity. Because it is far from obvious that there are moments when we put the interests of a group before our own, sometimes even to the point of self-sacrifice. To solve this moral puzzle, numerous ideas have been devised.?

There are two well-known proposed solutions: the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" approach and kin selection, in which people aid their relatives to ensure the survival of the shared genes. Everyone wins in the long run if people support one another (principle of reciprocity).?

Cooperation and selflessness cannot be taken for granted. To demonstrate why it can be beneficial for people to put self-interests aside, Mohammad Salahshour of the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences (now at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior) has employed a game theory-based approach.?

Mohammad Salahshour, a mathematician at the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, has used game theory's techniques to explain how moral norms evolve because game theory looks at how people rationally choose sides in conflicts.?

His findings were published in the?journal PLOS Computational Biology.

Salahshour's initial concern was with the reason for the existence of moral standards in the first place. And why do we have varying moral standards, if not even opposing ones??

For instance, while some standards, like "assist others," encourage selfless behaviour, others, like dress codes, seem to have little to do with reducing selfishness. Salahshour combined two games to attempt to address these concerns. The first was the classic prisoner's dilemma, in which two players must choose between cooperating for a modest payoff and betraying themselves for a much higher prize.?

This game can serve as an archetypal illustration of a social problem in which members of a group must act selflessly for the group to succeed. In this game, if too many people act selfishly, everyone loses compared to the case where everyone acts altruistically. However, if only a small number of people act selfishly, they may outperform their more altruistic team members.?

A game that focuses on common group decisions, such as resource allocation, leadership selection, and coordinating tasks, would be the second option. The majority of these issues can be classed as coordination or anti-coordination issues in the end.?

Without combining the two games, it is obvious that in the Prisoner's Dilemma, cooperation does not work and, if there are enough selfless players, acting selfishly is the best option from the standpoint of the individual. Selfish people, however, are unable to effectively resolve coordination issues and waste a lot of resources since they do not coordinate their work.?

When the outcomes of the two games are taken into account as a whole and there are moral norms in place that encourage cooperation, the situation can completely change. Now, cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma can suddenly pay off because the gain in the second game more than makes up for the loss in the first game.

?Co-operation and Coordination Because of Self-Interest?

Social order as well as cooperative conduct develops as a result of this process. Since everyone benefits from it, moral action is advantageous for all parties involved. Salahshour writes, "In my evolutionary model, there were no selfless acts at first, but as a result of the coupling of the two games, more and more moral rules arose."?

"Then I noticed a rapid shift to a system with a lot of cooperation," he continued. In this "moral condition," a set of coordination norms develops that assists people in better coordinating their activity. It is through this process that societal norms and moral standards might develop. “

Coordination norms, on the other hand, encourage collaboration because it turns out to be a behaviour that is rewarding for the individual as well. "A moral system works like a Trojan horse: it delivers self-sacrificing collaboration once it is created out of the individual's self-interest to promote order and organization," he said.

Salahshour wants to better understand societal processes through his work. He says, "This might help make people's lives better in the future." "However, you can also use my game-theoretic strategy to explain how social norms in social media emerged. People exchange information there while simultaneously making strategic judgments, such as whom to support or what cause to support."?

He reiterated that the exchange of knowledge and the development of collaborative methods are two simultaneously active dynamics. It is yet unclear how they interact, but perhaps game theory will eventually shed new light on this current problem as well.

Game theory and models hold out a promise to address several social issues and problems, a promise that is yet to be fully developed.