The Game Theory - and Ethics

I have written about games of life before. Many articles. Each one describing a slightly different viewpoint about life. Here yet again, I write on Games of life. This time about game theory and its application to ethics. You may need some background on mathematics and common sense to understand the following discussion. Let's Dive in.

Game theory is the part of mathematics which describe how people make decisions when their decisions affect the outcomes for themselves and others, often in social contexts like business, politics etc. Commonly described in the way of prisoner's dilemma.

Game

Prisoner's Dilemma.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a famous example in game theory that shows why two people might not cooperate, even if it's in their best interest. Two prisoners are arrested and questioned separately. If both stay silent, they get light sentences. If one betrays the other, the betrayer goes free while the other gets a heavy sentence. If both betray, they both get moderate sentences. Even though staying silent benefits both, they often betray each other out of fear — showing how self-interest can lead to worse outcomes for everyone.

So, if we are looking for the best outcome for all the members in a group, co-operation of everyone is essential. But if one guy decided to betray, he may benefit while all others suffer consequences. If the dilemma exists for two players, consider when there are thousands of players, like in fashion industry. Often there would be no mercy shown by others when there is a betrayal. Best outcome scenario by co-operation is called Social Optimum. Which is unstable. However there exist the stable status which is betrayal. When you chose to betray all the time, the outcome would not depend on what the other person choses. Hence it is stable. This status is called Nash Equilibrium.

But consider this prisoners dilemma game is played again and again with same opponent, and if you continue to betray, others will know it and adjust their strategy, making it worse outcome for both. Hence in such a situation where repeated play occurs best strategy is called "Tit for Tat". You start forgiving, if the other prisoner started to co-operate in the last game and do a "Tit for tat" if he betrays in previous game. Being Nice all the time or being aggressor, all the time would not make you win in such long-term games. So, what does this teaches us about ethics?

Race against survival - unsplash

Game theory and ethics

Consider you are a CEO of a company. If you think being nice all the time with your opponents or, even co-players would make you win, that is not true. At some point one of the competitors are going to get greedy and try to swallow you. And they may succeed if you continue to play the "Nice" game. So, you may choose "Tit for Tat" instead. Of course, now you know it is the winning strategy, there is no other choice. But if your opponent is inviably far dominant, co-operation might be the best way to survive. Hoping you might be stronger one day to fight back.

Another way I look at the game is comparing the default betrayer, to the evil dictator, and the nice player to the God. As, God is unconditionally forgiving, this is a good comparison. So, in such a game, it is inevitable that if the "God" started to play with the "evil" he is going to lose anyway. So, for the betterment of the majority the "God" will have to use some dirty tactics of "Evil" to win the game and remain powerful. The God will have to use some Tit for Tat strategy. If God also have to use evil, how can we ever dream about a complete ethical world where everyone is happy winning? As long as there are two individuals in same environment we would be involved in this dirty game of fighting for resources.

Balls of yarn

A ball of yarn

This is why when once Elon musk said "If you are wishing for world peace, be aware to be amazed by all the sacrifices we have to make to reach there". It might easily mean wiping out all the consciousness which do not desire peace but selfish existence. In other words, such a peace can only be achieved without war, only if magically all 8 billion people of the world suddenly understand this logic of game theory and chose to co-operate with everyone. Including just newborn babies. It makes me little sad, that we cannot achieve the better future for our children, but makes me alerted to look at my own life to understand how I got entangled in this ball of yarn in the first place.