game theory, meet veneer theory - a thought execise - Dan Dreifort

I thought of this exercise while pondering Pascal’s Wager and Frans de Waal’s Primates and Philosophers. The Wager, summarized by the chart below evaluates belief in God versus non-belief.

Pascal’s Wager demonstrates the economy of believing in God as there is a chance of great benefit and no chance of eternal suffering. Acting as if there is no God is not as inviting.

Is our "good" just a thin coating?

Just as Pascal noted, “Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth” (Pascal), I find it important to mention that it is irresponsible of de Waal to discard other possible explanations for the human and potentially primate moral condition without first analyzing options other than morals rooted in biology. There are several refutations to Pascal’s Wager. My favorite objection is that contrary to Christian scripture, God might reward skepticism and reasoning while instead punishing those relying on the easy route of faith. Though useful, this thought exercise parallel to Pascal’s is by no means decisive and serves only to open doors closed by de Waal.

As I demonstrated in “of dichotomies and morals” veneer theory can exist in harmony with both de Waal’s biologically based morals and Darwin’s theory of evolution. To summarize, when we accept that there are both good and bad people, mimicry is an acceptable evolutionary explanation for a veneer of goodness over otherwise bad people. It is only when one declares that all people are good at the core that veneer theory fails. There are other reasonable options!

In this short experiment I use simple game theory and probabilistic outcomes to weigh the possible sources of ethical norms and behavior (veneer and morals) presented by de Waal and their harmonious union vis-à-vis the three possible particular combinations of qualities or inherent tendencies to describe human nature (moral, immoral & both existing simultaneously.) In chart form, it looks like this…

Though there’s nothing as moving as eternal damnation to sway an audience, because the jury is still out on human nature it is easy to show that the veneer is just as likely a candidate as biological morals.

Both Pascal’s and my charts are thought provoking but they prove nothing. Thought is good, though might lead to mayhem according to some! Nonetheless, I risk social disorder by leaving you with two more of the many charts I made while thinking about these two fascinating quandaries. The first is a summary of my favorite twist on Pascal’s Wager. It takes the results from the original Wager and moves them over to one of the axes for some raucous commentary meant to sway the audience. The final chart adds another player into the veneer theory/morals quandary, causing veneer theory to appear more probable in comparison. By adding the possibility of morals not rooted in biology we invite yet another option dismissed by de Waal into the conversation. These non-biological morals could be from God or they might be from a human-invented God story. Both variations (and possibly others) fit snugly into the single category.