more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I do not favour the route taken by Hobbes's modern descendants, using game theory, since I believe the impersonal standpoint makes an essential contribution to individual motivation which must be addressed by any ethically acceptable theory.
Gist of Idea
Game theory misses out the motivation arising from the impersonal standpoint
Source
Thomas Nagel (Equality and Partiality [1991], Ch.4)
Book Ref
Nagel,Thomas: 'Equality and Partiality' [OUP 1995], p.34
A Reaction
The assumption of self-seeking at the core of game theory seems very bizarre, and leads to moral approval of free riders. Nagel offers the best response, which is the Kantian impersonal view. Nagel may be optimistic about motivation, though.
| 6479 | Noninterference requires justification as much as interference does [Nagel] |
| 6446 | In ethics we abstract from our identity, but not from our humanity [Nagel] |
| 6448 | A legitimate system is one accepted as both impartial and reasonably partial [Nagel] |
| 6447 | Game theory misses out the motivation arising from the impersonal standpoint [Nagel] |
| 6477 | I can only universalise a maxim if everyone else could also universalise it [Nagel] |
| 6450 | Morality must be motivating, and not because of pre-moral motives [Nagel] |
| 6478 | Democracy is opposed to equality, if the poor are not a majority [Nagel] |