Marcus, here is an attempt to show 2 things:
A) “why the anti-concept ‘reciprocal altruism’ is not rational in each case [below]”
AND
B) “what rational concept(s) would better describe the behaviour.”
1) My friend Roger plays tournament poker (where money is pooled; and the top 3 winners take all). He goes to the tournaments with a friend. Tournaments include a dozen or two dozen players total.
He recently admitted to me that, when his friend's "chips are down" and Roger's hand is good, then he will deliberately "fold" his good poker hand--to help his friend win. I'll bet he's hoping that his friend reciprocates this generosity--when Roger's chips are down.
In this example, Roger is “betting” on his friend “reciprocating” the generosity at some future point in time.
The rational concept (option B above) is the trading principle of rational egoism—ie. Roger chooses behavior (cooperation) that WILL BENEFIT ROGER over the course of the entire tournament.
In contrast, the anti-concept of reciprocal altruism insinuates that Roger seeks to sacrifice himself for a greater good, but that Roger is rational enough to know that he cannot do this indiscriminately—so he must use reciprocity to justify his sacrifices.
2) I am a novice power-lifter. I send off money (registration fee) to enter the contests. The hosts of these contests say that they will take the first 40 or 50 applicants, and then close registration for that meet (more than 50 competitors would take all day!).
Now, on the registration form there is an option to include the purchase of a T-shirt ($10). Not knowing the morality of the host (do they REALLY take the FIRST 50?--Or do they favor some entries over others?); and realizing that an extra $10, if it helps guarantee my entry, is worth it to me--I always buy a shirt.
In short, I'm hoping that my "T-shirt buying" generosity will be rewarded.
The rational concept (option B above) is the trading principle of rational egoism—ie. I’m choosing behavior (relative generosity) that WILL BENEFIT ME. It can’t however, if it involves a sacrifice. A sacrifice (a necessary component of any altruistic notion) involves trading what has higher value to you, for what has lower value to you (but also has some supposed “intrinsic value—one that is higher than any individual’s personal value). As I value my own entry into these competitions more than I value a measly $10, I have not sacrificed a higher value for a lower one—I have merely acted according to my hierarchy of values.
In contrast, the anti-concept of reciprocal altruism insinuates that I am sacrificing value (and hoping that others will somehow reciprocate in kind—so that we can all mutually benefit from our mutual sacrifice).
This is irrational because only the acting agents know, really know, their own hierarchy of value, in any given situation. We cannot wait for others to magically read our value systems and step in to offer us exactly what we need/desire, at the best moment, and in the best way—so as to maximize our individual utility. One big drawback to altruism of all varieties, for instance, is the harm to the self-esteem of beneficiaries--an aspect of reality that has been known for decades:
It has often been said that power corrupts. But it is perhaps equally important to realize that weakness, too, corrupts. Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are the faults of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from their sense of inadequacy and impotence. We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression. –Eric Hoffer Source:
http://www.freedomsnest.com/cgi-bin/q.cgi?subject=corruption
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/31, 6:07pm)
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/31, 6:07pm)
| 
