Why a person in pursuit of rational behavior could choose to be "go...

Why a person in pursuit of rational behavior could choose to be "good"

In my previous post I discussed lists. These lists may be encrypted and have secret voters. I mentioned that there could be good person lists and bad person lists. I do not define what "good" or "bad" is because this is a community defined term. A consensus on what good and bad is may be made public via a blockchain or it might be a secret list of unwritten rules which if followed (or broken) could land a person on either the good or bad person list. But a question remains that if these lists don't exist or if they exist in secret why would a person in pursuit of rational behavior choose to be "good"?

There are only people who pursue rational behavior because no one is truly rational

Rational agents are defined:

In economics, game theory, decision theory, and artificial intelligence, a rational agent is an agent that has clear preferences, models uncertainty via expected values of variables or functions of variables, and always chooses to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome for itself from among all feasible actions. A rational agent can be anything that makes decisions, typically a person, firm, machine, or software.

To put it into context a rational agent is an agent which makes choices using cost reward analysis. Cost vs reward is simply to map out all expected consequences from any action to determine which action produces the greatest rewards for the least costs. If we think of decision making like we think of shopping then we will want to get the most bang for our buck. This manner of thinking stretches into social exchange theory where the worth of a relationship or interaction is based on the formula:

"Worth = Rewards − Costs"

So a person who is in pursuit of rational behavior will seek to get the most rewards possible from their life with the least cost. This cost minimization algorithm could include regret minimization. Regret is a psychological cost which people tend to want the least amount of over a lifetime. To minimize regret is to minimize a negative cluster of emotions which you may not want to feel.

I use the phrase "pursuit of rationality" because humans not augmented by machines are very limited in ability to be rational. This is highlighted in the scientific literature on bounded rationality. The conclusion from the scientific literature is human beings are not capable of being rational. Because of this conclusion I often state: "humans are not capable of morality" because if you believe morality depends on a capacity for rationality (and humans can't be rational) then how can humans be moral?

The criminal who strives for rationality

Not all criminals are alike in the manner of crimes they commit. If we assume statistically that everyone commits a crime then everyone is a criminal but the distinction can be made by the type of crimes being committed. Rational choice theory discusses the rational reasons for crime which often go ignored:

In criminology, rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. This method was designed by Cornish and Clarke to assist in thinking about situational crime prevention.[1] It is assumed that crime is purposive behavior designed to meet the offender’s commonplace needs for such things as money, status, sex and excitement, and that meeting these needs involves the making of (sometimes quite rudimentary) decisions and choices, constrained as these are by limits, ability, and the availability of relevant information.

When a person striving to be rational commits a crime they can always provide a reason which includes their cost reward analysis. This person typically believes (possibly due to lack of knowledge) that they can get away with it and that the rewards far outweigh the costs. Costs in the case of crime could be loss of respect, loss of reputation, loss of love (or attracting hate), loss of money, or even loss of lives in certain situations. The lack of knowledge typically involves the statistical knowledge (probability or rate of getting caught, probability of a light or heavy punishment, etc). So from a consequence based perspective a person striving to be rational can decide certain criminal acts are too expensive to ever do (too risky). It is also important to note that regret or psychological costs matter as well and a criminal trying to be rational would understand the psychological pain of bad choices.

Reciprocal altruism: A reason why a person pursuing rational behavior would adopt good behaviors

Cooperation as an activity is not free. In order to get something from others requires paying for it in the form of doing something for others. Reciprocity is the act of Alice doing something Bob wants and in exchange Bob does something Alice wants. Often reciprocity is in a 1:1 correlation if Alice and Bob decide to keep score. Blockchain technology allows for this score keeping but it is also important to note that keeping score isn't necessary in all cases.

We can think of reciprocity as the reciprical algorithm. It's algorithmic in nature and it can be summarized as a tit for tat style of communication. Typically tit for tat is equivalent retaliation but because it's the same algorithm behind reciprocity it can also be equivalent rewards. In other words the hidden algorithm behind it all is equivalent exchange.

The algorithm is: If you do this... I'll do that.

This is the essence behind reciprocity. Reciprocal altruism is "I receive the favor from you, I notice the favor, I feel happiness (I appreciate the favor), I feel obligated to do a favor for you/ I like you and I want to do a favor for you. Through this mechanism of exchange people help one another over indefinite periods of time. There is an element of positive reinforcement in this which encourages the behavior pattern to continue.

Why a person in pursuit of rational behavior could choose to be "good"