Motivation

Reading the Kahan and the social games articles got me thinking about some of the philosophical, rather than psychological, frameworks for individual action within society. Kahan describes the conventional theory as casting people as wealth maximizing agents who cooperate with others when given enough “incentives,” while the reciprocity theory portrays people as “moral reciprocators” who cooperate based on trust. This, along with several references Kahan makes throughout his article reminded me of the utilitarian/deontological debate.

Utility needs some basis of measurement, and so the conventional theory of collective action that emphasizes accrued wealth and incentives (usually some material gain, though pleasure/pain work too) fits nicely in this framework. Reciprocity, particularly in its most extreme form, smacks of a rigid adherence to Kant, choosing one’s actions a priori before taking the time to learn to play the games.

Yet the need for a basis of measurement leads to a commensurability problem. Money is an easy answer, and the common unit for these game studies. Kantian logic, however, urges that we avoid such measurements as a valid basis for human action.

The game studies show that people will act according to material game, but also give up some gain to punish the bad behavior of others. However, they suggest that people never act in a purely altruistic manner.

Are pure personal utilitarians jerks and pure Kantian a prori actors chumps? Can it be that people act, at least on occasion, without taking personal gain into account at all (or at most taking the action they would want everyone else to take into account)?