Presuppositions Of The Game Theory Essay

This essay has a total of 1134 words and 6 pages.

Presuppositions Of The Game Theory

Presuppositions of The Game Theory


Soloman believes that as the game theory gets more sophisticated, we tend to
lose sight of the problem rather than solve it. He sees the problem as how to
get people to think about business and about themselves in an Aristotelian
rather than a neo-Hobbesian (or even a Rawlsian) way, which the game theoretical
models simply presuppose.

Soloman discusses seven presuppositions in the first section of his "Ethics &
Excellence" book. They are: rationality and prudence; motivation and self-
interest; money and measurement; the anomaly of altruism; good and goals; the
open-ended playing field; and the role of the rules. Soloman rejects each
presupposition and gives his reasons why.

This essay will discuss two of these presuppositions and either agree or
disagree with Soloman and then give reasons as to why. The two presuppositions
that will be discussed are money and measurement and the role of the rules.

Money and Measurement

In business, as in most games, we like to keep score. As one of Soloman's
businessman friends told him "in business you always know how well you are doing.
You just have to put your hand in your pocket." People often think the more
money one has, the happier they are. You often hear people say "if I only had
more money, I would be happy." Frequently the perceived level of success is
compared to the size of one's bank account, the location of their house or the
amount of cars in the driveway. People seem to perceive money as being
happiness.

Soloman says that keeping score, although it is not an essential feature of
games, seems to be one of the most durable features of game theory. He thinks
that the best way to keep score is to have a dependable point system, a definite
unit of worth, which is money.

Soloman rejects this presupposition by first stating that "money isn't the only
or even primary social good", and "money is only a means and not an end."
Soloman agrees with these statements but to further reject this presupposition,
he goes on to discuss another example involving money.

Social theorists, in general, "like to talk about money, because money is a
readily measurable utility, a readily comparable measure, and apparently clear
basis for comparison." But even some of these unrefined theorists recognize
that equal amounts of money do not have equal significance for different people,
therefore money is not an absolute readily measurable utility. Soloman states
that various ends are hard to compare and so success and "maximum utility" may
be hard to measure. "If we were to assign every end a monetary value, however,
and rate various preferences according to their exchange value on the market, we
would indeed have a single scale on which to compare and evaluate ends and means
and determine utility."

I agree with Soloman's reasoning. I do not think that success and "maximum
utility" can be so easily measured with money. Almost everyone in the world
values money, but not all at the same rate. The importance of money varies from
person to person, therefore the "utility of money" varies. Some people rate
money as the most important thing to them. These people usually get lost in
their everyday work life, doing everything for money and measuring everything
with a monetary value. Some people perceive money as important, but not more
important than such things as their families, health and freedom. Then, there
are some people who are happy with what they have. I was once told that the
wealthiest people in the world are the people that are happy with what they have.
These people need only enough money to be reasonably comfortable and they
believe in the importance of self-esteem and peace of mind. People have
different wants and different values, which makes it very hard to use money as
an absolute means of measurement.
Continues for 3 more pages >>