So?
The is/ought problem in philosophy describes the idea that one can not prove definitively that just because something is a certain way means it ought to be that way. Of course this means the opposite is true too. One can not prove it ought not to be that way either, at least not without considerably more intellectual effort.
So to say that ambition is good because human beings have evolved to be ambitious, and because most people seem to look down on those deemed “lazy” (a response which is likely both inherited and conditioned by social structures), is ultimately an untenable answer.
I think it is important for individuals to examine their own minds on a regular basis, and see if they can logically justify their own beliefs to themselves, from the ground up. If they find that they can not, that should be an indication that those beliefs come from external or biological influences rather than through introspection.
[quote]musicma1n1 wrote:
Ambition does not require violence. [/quote]
yes it does, as primates. it is hardwired in our DNA. to be top monkey. you have to crack the skull of the monkey ahead of you. to take his place. as I get bigger and stronger. so does my ambition grow. this in its self will bring me into conflict with others. there isn’t room at the table for every one. you will be consumed by violence. if you keeping thinking like a liberal.
Well explain a little bit about “Game Theory” So I can figure out if I want to buy it and read it.
Game theory examines a game in which there are a given number of “players” and a number of outcomes based on their decisions. John Nash came up with the idea of the Nash equilibrium. This is achieved when each player chooses his/her best strategy based on what the other player’s actions are.
However, this may not be a pareto optima ( it could be changed so that 1 or more players were better off without damaging the position of other players). An example would be to prisoners who are being held for questioning and are accused (not yet proven guilty) of a crime. Call them PrA and PrB, assume both are guilty, are unable to confer, decide simultaneously and are aware of the outcomes of each strategy.
Say these are the outomes:
PrA confesses, PrB denies: PrA gets 0 years, PrB gets 10
PrA denies, PrB confesses: Pr A gets 10 years, PrB gets 0
PrA confesses, PrB confesses: Pr A gets 5 years, PrB gets 5 years
PrA denies, PrB denies: Both get 0 years.
If Prisoner A confesses, prisoner B’s best strategy is to confess (5 instead of 10), if prisoner A denies, B’s strategy is still to confess (0 instead of 5). Therefore B will always confess. The same applies for A in relation to B.
So, the nash equilibrium in this case is (confess,confess) even though (deny,deny) gives a better outcome for both players.
Hope this helped.