Information theory is the wrong place to look for objective morality. Information is purely epistemic—i.e. about knowing. You need to look at game theory. That deals with wanting and doing. As far as I know, no one has had any moral issues with simply knowing since we got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It is what we want and what we do that get us into moral trouble these days.
Here is a sketch of a game-theoretic golden rule: Form coalitions that are as large as possible. Act so as to yield the Nash bargaining solution in all games with coalition members—pretending that they have perfect information about your past actions, even though they may not actually have perfect information. Do your share to punish defectors and members of hostile coalitions, but forgive after fair punishment has been meted out. Treat neutral parties with indifference—if they have no power over you, you have no reason to apply your power over them in either direction.
This “objective morality” is strikingly different from the “inter-subjective morality” that evolution presumably installed in our human natures. But this may be an objective advantage if we have to make moral decisions regarding Baby Eaters who presumably received a different endowment from their own evolutionary history.
Do your share to punish defectors and members of hostile coalitions, but forgive after fair punishment has been meted out.
This does help bring clarity to the babyeaters’ actions: The babies are, by existing, defecting against the goal of having a decent standard of living for all adults. The eating is the ‘fair punishment’ that brings the situation back to equilibrium.
I suspect that we’d be better served by a less emotionally charged word than ‘punishment’ for that phenomenon in general, though.
Oh, I think “punishment” is just fine as a word to describe the proper treatment of defectors, and it is actually used routinely in the game-theory literature for that purpose. However, I’m not so sure I would agree that the babies in the story are being “punished”.
I would suggest that, as powerless agents not yet admitted to the coalition, they ought to be treated with indifference, perhaps to be destroyed like weeds, were no other issues involved. But there is something else involved—the babies are made into pariahs, something similar to a virgin sacrifice to the volcano god. Participation in the baby harvesting is transformed to a ritual social duty. Now that I think about it, it does seem more like voodoo than rational-agent game theory.
However, the game theory literature does contain examples where mutual self-punishment is required for an optimal solution, and a rule requiring requiring one to eat one’s own babies does at least provide some incentive to minimize the number of excess babies produced.
Information theory is the wrong place to look for objective morality. Information is purely epistemic—i.e. about knowing. You need to look at game theory. That deals with wanting and doing. As far as I know, no one has had any moral issues with simply knowing since we got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It is what we want and what we do that get us into moral trouble these days.
Here is a sketch of a game-theoretic golden rule: Form coalitions that are as large as possible. Act so as to yield the Nash bargaining solution in all games with coalition members—pretending that they have perfect information about your past actions, even though they may not actually have perfect information. Do your share to punish defectors and members of hostile coalitions, but forgive after fair punishment has been meted out. Treat neutral parties with indifference—if they have no power over you, you have no reason to apply your power over them in either direction.
This “objective morality” is strikingly different from the “inter-subjective morality” that evolution presumably installed in our human natures. But this may be an objective advantage if we have to make moral decisions regarding Baby Eaters who presumably received a different endowment from their own evolutionary history.
This does help bring clarity to the babyeaters’ actions: The babies are, by existing, defecting against the goal of having a decent standard of living for all adults. The eating is the ‘fair punishment’ that brings the situation back to equilibrium.
I suspect that we’d be better served by a less emotionally charged word than ‘punishment’ for that phenomenon in general, though.
Oh, I think “punishment” is just fine as a word to describe the proper treatment of defectors, and it is actually used routinely in the game-theory literature for that purpose. However, I’m not so sure I would agree that the babies in the story are being “punished”.
I would suggest that, as powerless agents not yet admitted to the coalition, they ought to be treated with indifference, perhaps to be destroyed like weeds, were no other issues involved. But there is something else involved—the babies are made into pariahs, something similar to a virgin sacrifice to the volcano god. Participation in the baby harvesting is transformed to a ritual social duty. Now that I think about it, it does seem more like voodoo than rational-agent game theory.
However, the game theory literature does contain examples where mutual self-punishment is required for an optimal solution, and a rule requiring requiring one to eat one’s own babies does at least provide some incentive to minimize the number of excess babies produced.
Does that “game-theoretic golden rule” even tell you how to behave?