Last blog entry, we looked at the Prisoner’s Dilemma (see entry with the same title): a gaming scenario that has parallels to life’s decision-making and questions our morality and self-interest.
So, when asked in the blog, which did you favour: to cooperate or to betray?
In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, if one opts for betrayal, in the hope that the other player cooperates, is this not morally indefensible? If one resolves to cooperate in the belief that your opponent will respond with the same choice, then is this form of good moral thinking not just an subtle strategy of looking after oneself?
In making such decisions, if people were to put themselves in the other person’s shoes then, surely, the choice would be to cooperate. Such a response would be from the heart rather than from the head.
If there is a moral emerging from this, it would be to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself; to act with decency and dignity.
So how often does this sort of scenario manifest? Probably much more often that you imagine!
What follows are two examples which come under the wider umbrella of ‘justice.’
Psychology: In addiction research, it has been pointed out that addiction can be seen as a ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ problem between the present and future selves of the addict. In this case, defecting or betrayal means relapsing.
i) It is easy to see that not to betray (relapse), both today and in the future, is by far the best outcome and that
ii) betrayal (relapse), both today and in the future, is the worst outcome.
iii) The case where one abstains today but relapses in the future is clearly a bad outcome—in some sense the discipline and self-sacrifice involved in abstaining today will have been ‘wasted’ because the future relapse means that the addict is right back where (s)he started and will have to start over (which is quite demoralising, and makes starting over more difficult).
iv) The final case, where one engages in the addictive behaviour today while abstaining ‘tomorrow’ will be familiar to anyone who has struggled with an addiction. The problem here is that there is an obvious benefit to defecting/relapsing ‘today’ but tomorrow one will face the same Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the same obvious benefit will be present then, ultimately leading to an endless string of defections/relapses.
Law: The theoretical conclusion of Prisoner’s Dilemma is one reason why, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the Prisoner’s Dilemma scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other prisoner/suspect, even if each is innocent of the alleged crime.
Comments
RSS feed for comments to this post