Class

[fypast]

More for myself, I'm going to make it a trend to describe my classed at the start of each semester on this here journal.

Descartes to Kierkegaard: Just an overview of modern Philsophy basically. Same professor as I had for Metaphysics last semester. I enjoy him. He's the somewhat Sean Connery voice guy. He likes to say, "Did you all understand

Comments

[i_am_sharkface]

example:
2 people are making an anonymous drug deal. one person is obligated to put a bag of drugs in a trash can and the other is to put a sack of money in another trash can. the two people will never see each other.

if you put the money in, and you get the drugs from the other trash can, we could say you're both up 10 points. you both cooperated and got something. if both of you put nothing in the trash cans, you both get and lose nothing. theres also the possibility of the dealer ripping you off, or you ripping the dealer off. so look at the possible action and their consequences:

If I put the money/drugs (accordingly to the role) in the trash can, I have a 50/50 chance of getting what I want. If I don't put the money/drugs in the can, I might get something for free, and I won't lose anything. So, it is always in my best interest - through the process of reason - that I don't cooperate or hold up my side of the bargain.

The moral dimension of this is: does a rational evaluation of something lead us to act in our own self interest?

this is why contractarian's argue their point of view.

[fypast]

well, I would say that if there were a series of singular events, completely unrelated, that one was involved in like the one you described, then non-cooperation would be the most profitable in objects. However, this would mean lack of social relationships, because it would branch into life and there'd be no room for trust or companionship.

However, if one was in the business of drug dealing... such a lack of cooperation would be beneficial in that one instance... but would cause a lack of future opportunity in drug dealing, because you would be known as one who rips the other off.

right before they capped yo' ass that is.

[fypast]

p.s. salso, as on The Apprentice last night (yes, i'm using pop culture, I do what I want)... They had to choose an artist and sell their paintings. One group chose an artist whose paintings usually sell for 2 times the amount of the others (the 50/50 or 100 percent in your scenario). However, her paintings were for a peculiar taste... yet if they sold just one, they'd win. That was their risk.

All they were able to sell was a small painting for less than 1/2 the amount they would have got for one of any of the other painters (who had more universal appeal). Whereas the other group, which a less abstract painter, whose paintings sold for less each, made 13 times as much money.

This is to say, sometimes the 50/50 is more reliable to go with. Who knows, you may just end up with nothing everytime you fail to put the money/drugs in the trash. And you still lose in that case, because sure you have the same as you had before, but there's a reason you were doing the deal. Because you wanted the drugs or money. and now you don't have it, but you have drugs/money you would have preferred to give up for the other.

[fypast]

In the end: acting in your self-interest would mean cooperating...

[feverishly]

YOU'RE FIRED!

[fypast]

please... don't say it Mr. Trump...
oh, I am becoming a tv-nerd with my Apprentice, gilmore girls, simpsons and 24.