Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4375
A behavioral optimization for reciprocity must necessarily also include negative reciprocity.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
pretty sure i summed it up in the "short description"
"It is possible to find meaning, purpose, and happiness in life regardless of one's stance on forgiveness or religion."
History disagrees.
"If you disagree, feel free to open a debate about it for me."
No.
"People who dont forgive end up being angry atheists"
It is possible to find meaning, purpose, and happiness in life regardless of one's stance on forgiveness or religion. If you disagree, feel free to open a debate about it for me.
"forgiveness doesn't figure into this equation"
Wrong. What you are really saying is: "I think forgiveness sucks, therefore I wont forgive".
People who dont forgive end up being angry atheists who say that everyone who disagrees with them is oppressing them. So forgiveness is a must for optimizing human behavior and preventing angry atheism.
forgiveness doesn't figure into this equation, and i don't care for that word. i'm talking about reciprocity as a hypothetical virtue; specifically, as i outlined in my short description, doing things for others without an immediate expectation that receivers of your kindness or good will return what you put in- just that some will, and that that is preferable to expecting that "everyone is always looking out for number 1." i'm also pointing to something quite different than what the two of you seem to think was presented here, that a longer-term conception of reciprocity must also include negative reciprocity--not just punishment for what they've done, but what you expect will or won't be done. it's obviously incomplete to simply be nice and giving toward everyone; it's also incomplete to say that pain merits reciprocal pain, because we all experience that differently and for different reasons, and you can't read the mind of another person in gauging what's an appropriate punishment. what was presented is more about an emotional optimization of human behaviors as it relates to philosophy- hence the only tag i included- than it is about individual people, game theory, specific rewards, or its merits from a computer modeling standpoint.
I practice randomness. I usually forgive the first two attacks, then from that point its punishment or forgiveness depending on how I feel like.
However, I agree that after punishment, you should forgive people and not hold their previous behavior against them.
Of course, if you are forgiving and not punishing bad behavior at all, then people treat you like crap. You become path of least resistance for their jokes, insults and abuse.
Computer models who have dealt with this problem agree that you punish for every bad behavior but also forgive.
AI models that forgive do worse than ones ones who don't but AI models that punish and then forgive do the best an game theory scenarios.
Fun, but I prefer forgiveness too to be included in my equation, and not simply "I hurt = they hurt".