undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsjpttsn12y ago0 comments

Capturing the positive aspects in game theoretic terms might have advantages; I recognised rigour as one.

However, I don't think these advantages warrant capturing all the positive aspects in game theoretic terms. It makes the reading opaque, hiding the normative value judgments behind scientific-seeming jargon.

Instead of formalising the positive aspects, clarify the underlying normative choices. Then we will come closer to finding where it is we actually disagree.

0 comments

ChristianMarks12y ago

I have revised the article at http://publicsphere.org. The normative value judgments are not hidden behind scientific seeming jargon. The normative value judgements retain the significance they have--however, they are inextricably entangled with certain positive phenomena, which should be explicated. Instead of denying the relevance of positive aspects outright behind philosophical seeming jargon based on a discredited fact-value dichotomy imported from British Logical Positivism into economics, find some positive reason they are wrong. I see no reason to privilege the normative aspects at the expense of the positive aspects--unless the intention is to prevent the discussion from rising above ideological debate.

jpttsnOP12y ago

> inextricably entangled with certain positive phenomena, which should be explicated

Let me attempt to disentangle them: You assume collectives (not only individuals) have rights.

> approximately 0.1% of the US population has been systematically winning asymmetric zero-sum games against the lower 99%.

You treat clusters of individuals as players in a game, and infer injustice from systematic winning of these games; as though justice would necessitate "fair gameplay" between collectives, not just between individuals.

There's nothing to disagree with in your formalisation, but your formalisation is meaningless to anyone who disagrees with the underlying philosophy of rights and justice.

ChristianMarks12y ago

Let me attempt to disentangle them: You assume collectives (not only individuals) have rights.

No, I make no such assumption. The assertion that I do is not warranted. Since philosophers like to find inferences their interlocutors believe they have not made: locate this assumption. Rousseau's vocabulary of "rights" has not been particularly helpful.

I do not "infer" injustice. The attempt is to characterize positive aspects of it. It seems to be characterized by the systematic winning of certain games by one group against another, especially when the utility obtained by winning is population dependent for one group (the "winners") and not for the other group (the "losers").

A general prohibition against allowing one group to systematically win asymmetric zero-sum games against another group would be a normative principle. So would some elaboration of special exceptions.

incidentally, you use the term 'meaningless' too loosely. Under what philosophical theory does a formalization becomes meaningful depending on who agrees with its "underlying philosophy"?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ChristianMarks12y ago

jpttsnOP12y ago

> inextricably entangled with certain positive phenomena, which should be explicated

Let me attempt to disentangle them: You assume collectives (not only individuals) have rights.

> approximately 0.1% of the US population has been systematically winning asymmetric zero-sum games against the lower 99%.

There's nothing to disagree with in your formalisation, but your formalisation is meaningless to anyone who disagrees with the underlying philosophy of rights and justice.

ChristianMarks12y ago

Let me attempt to disentangle them: You assume collectives (not only individuals) have rights.

A general prohibition against allowing one group to systematically win asymmetric zero-sum games against another group would be a normative principle. So would some elaboration of special exceptions.

incidentally, you use the term 'meaningless' too loosely. Under what philosophical theory does a formalization becomes meaningful depending on who agrees with its "underlying philosophy"?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse