It does
not prescribe to the agent what is "good" - only what is "right". It is
the ultimate proof that effort at reconciling utilitarianism with more
deontological, agent relative, approaches are dubious, in the best of
cases. Teleology, in other words, in no guarantee of morality.
Acts are either means to an end or ends in themselves. This is no
infinite regression. There is bound to be an holy grail (happiness?) in
the role of the ultimate end. A more commonsense view would be to
regard acts as means and states of affairs as ends. This, in turn,
leads to a teleological outlook: acts are right or wrong in accordance
with their effectiveness at securing the achievement of the right
goals. Deontology (and its stronger version, absolutism) constrain the
means. It states that there is a permitted subset of means, all the
other being immoral and, in effect, forbidden. Game Theory is out to
shatter both the notion of a finite chain of means and ends culminating
in an ultimate end - and of the deontological view. It is
consequentialist but devoid of any value judgement.
Game Theory pretends that human actions are breakable into much smaller
"molecules" called games.
Pages:
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197