City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Morality as Social Software Jongjin Kim The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2786 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] MORALITY AS SOCIAL SOFTWARE by JONGJIN KIM A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 JONGJIN KIM All Rights Reserved ii Morality as Social Software by Jongjin Kim This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Jesse Prinz Chair of Examining Committee Date Nickolas Pappas Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Rohit Parikh Melvin Fitting Jesse Prinz THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract Morality as Social Software by Jongjin Kim Advisor: Rohit Parikh The dissertation research is a project to understand morality better through the concept of ‘Social Software.’ The dissertation is, consequently, to argue that the morality in a human society functions as a form of social software in the society. The three aspects of morality as social software are discussed in detail: the evolutionary, anti-entropic, and epistemic game-theoretic aspect. We humans ‘usually’ think that, for example, (a) killing other humans without any necessary reason is morally wrong, and (b) helping other humans in need is morally right. We want to know, in this dissertation research project, why we think in such ways. Myriads of answers to this question have already been offered. We will pursue an answer that has more explanatory power and enlightening lucidity. The term, ‘Social Software’ was coined by Rohit Parikh to connote, broadly, social “procedures that structure social reality” (van Eijck and Parikh 2009, p. 2). The term can be understood, “more or less equivalently,” (Parikh 2002-1, note 2) as ‘social procedure,’ ‘social algorithm,’ or ‘social game.’ (1) The first aspect of ‘morality as social software,’ to be discussed is the evolutionary: human morality has emerged and developed further through the process of evolution; (2) the second aspect iv is the anti-entropic: human morality is human resistance against the universal law of entropy that tends to annihilate everything from order to disorder; (3) the third aspect is the epistemic game- theoretic: human morality is understood better by epistemic game theory, which is a combination of ‘classical game theory’ and relatively new ‘epistemic logic.’ As more specific case studies for the epistemic game-theoretic aspect, the concepts of backward induction and “the less we know, the more rational and moral,” are discussed. Finally, a thorough discussion on the naturalistic fallacy instills more philosophical rigor into the dissertation. v Dedication To my mother and in memory of my father who let me learn what is morally right and what is morally wrong, so that how I ought to live with other beings. vi Acknowledgements It is my delightful duty to acknowledge the help that I have received in the writing of this dissertation. I appreciate the four elements (earth, water, fire, and air) and the six kinds of quarks (up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom) that have allowed me to write this dissertation. I appreciate that the food grown on earth came to me with water and air to make the fire within me. I would like to thank my dissertation supervisory committee comprised of Professors Rohit Parikh, Melvin Fitting, and Jesse Prinz. I am deeply grateful to my dissertation adviser Rohit Parikh for his judicious advice and firm encouragement (though sometimes “tough but fair”). Literally and in any counterfactual way, without Professor Parikh as a scholar, teacher, mentor, and friend of mine, this dissertation would not have been shaped into the present form. Though, as a science-trained philosophy disciple, I do not endorse any supernatural entity and concept, I have sometimes wondered that Professor Parikh and I might have had another teacher-student relationship in another trans-world. Especially, for the last few years, due to a strange University Rule between Colleges, he has not received the advising credit from advising me; still we have met his office, apartment, and cafés, once, twice, or three times a week whenever any issue has arisen. (Rohit ‘bhai,’1 I will remember this as long as my personal identity and memory persist.) To Professor Melvin Fitting, I am deeply indebted for his teaching, encouragement, and trust. Since I first took Professor Fitting’s First-Order Modal Logic course, his lucidly written logic textbooks2 and articulately spoken logic classes have been the major sources of my ‘humble’ 1 “(Indian) Added to proper names to form an affectionate form of address to an older person,” Oxford Living Dictionaries (English), https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bhai. 2 Such as, among others, Melvin Fitting (1990/1996 2nd ed.), First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving; Melvin Fitting and Richard L. Mendelsohn (1998), First-order Modal Logic. vii understanding of logic; since he became my first dissertation adviser and then, before he retired (I had not expected that fast retirement), his encouragement to me to pursue what I really wanted to research has come to fruition in this dissertation as an interface between ethics and logic; and since he has joined the prospectus (proposal) committee, and then later the supervisory committee, (I was fortunate to have him in those committees even after his ‘half’- retirement) his trust in my work has made me expedite the completion of this dissertation. (Mel, I will show you what I promised in the defense.) To Professor Jesse Prinz, I owe a great deal of the content and the form of this dissertation. I should confess that, while reading Professor Prinz’s works on moral philosophy, I have woken up to shatter my dogmas and to construct my view on morality (if I may, as Kant admitted that Hume interrupted Kant’s “dogmatic slumber”). I thank Professor Prinz for his professional services as the chair of both my prospectus exam and dissertation defense, especially when the unexpected happened in the prospectus exam. I appreciate Professor Prinz’s policies, “Students first!,” and further, “Crying students first!.” (Thanks, Jesse, my teacher.) I would like to thank Professors Richard Mendelsohn and Samir Chopra, who were the members of my prospectus committee, for their helpful suggestions and critical comments. I hope Professor Mendelsohn is now savoring his time after retirement; I will remember the long discussion with Professor Chopra at the first-floor cafeteria of the Graduate Center, and I believe we will have more time to share together. I am grateful to the committee of the comprehensive exam in ethics: Professors Stefan Bernard Baumrin, Douglas Lackey, and Steven Ross. As examiners, their standards were really high and hard to pass; while striving to meet their standards, I was able to come up with many of the ethical ideas discussed in this dissertation. viii I am also grateful to the former and the current chairpersons (Executive Officers) of the philosophy program of the Graduate Center, CUNY, for their inexhaustible support: Professors John Greenwood, Iakovos Vasiliou, and Nickolas Pappas. During the countless times that my Ph. D. education was in danger of being derailed, especially, Professor Greenwood’s considerate and encouraging involvement resolved the (administrative and financial) issues. (Thanks, John, I will remember you and Singapore.) In addition to those professors, I owe lots of ideas discussed here to the conversations in classrooms, cafés, and pubs with fellow students and colleagues. They are: Kathleen R., Todd, Cosim, Tudor, Len Mitchell, Hidenori, Hirohiko, Naoko, Yoko, Ren-June, Junhua, Yunqui (QiQi), Can Başkent, Ҫagil, Yoonhee, Sung Oo; and my friends whom I met at the University at Buffalo (SUNY): Konishi, Ping, S. Choi. My language is often “shaky,” both written and spoken, and both in my mother tongue and English. To my editor, Jen, for her thorough and creative edit, I am deeply grateful. Or, more than that: It has been an “ontological turn” that her editing work has made me feel free to write whatever I want to write. Instead of resorting to circumlocution, let me be direct: Without money, this work would not have been possible. The following universities’ students and chairpersons have provided me with financial support (as well as academic) by hiring me as an adjunct instructor: Professors Mark Halfon of Nassau Community College, Enrique Chávez-Arvizo of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Julie Maybee of Lehman College, Arlig Andrew of Brooklyn College, Howard Ruttenberg, George White, and Timothy Kirk of York College, and Tiger Roholt of Montclair State University. I appreciate the shining eyes of those students. ix However, “adjuncting” in New York City would not be enough to make ends meet, and so my “budget deficit” has had to be filled by the financial support of numerous friends, in addition to brothers, sisters, and their families. I would like to express and “engrave” my deep gratitude to them: Kyu-Tae Jeong, Kyu-Dong, Jae-Myeong Kim, Sang-Gyun, Hee-Baek, Chang-Ryung, Ho- Seok, and brothers and sisters. So, not rhetorically, but literally, they all have some shares of my life and what I will achieve. Finally, all the help appreciated here is my fortune; still, all errors and mistakes remaining in this dissertation are my sole responsibility.