The classic prisoner's dilemma comes originally from game theory, but can also be used to examine particular moral situations. It's also used for modelling certain economic situations. Here's the basic scenario (copied from Wikipedia):
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? Francis On 7 Feb., 14:56, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't get your link to work. Is this that old Brit. tv show with #6 > called "The Prisoner?" I didn't get that show for a while but it grew > on me. It had quite the cult following back in the 80's but I haven't > heard about it in years and years. > > In a moral dilemma, I believe the actionable person would do what > he/she believes is in his/her best interests. If more then one person > is involved there is likely to be lively debate and a probable fight > in which the strongest and most determined will when. I'll stick with > the moral axiom that women and children are first, old men and the > crew go down with the ship. Of course, who knows how one will react > when in a crisis? Self preservation is a wonderful motivator. > > I would allow people to sell their organs. If the healthy fellow was > selfless enough to give up his organs in trade for something, i think > he should be allowed to do so. I think it is wrong, of course, to > kill one to save five. We actually have laws against this. > > dj > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 3:31 AM, frantheman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Welcome to the group, Pavan. > > > Such questions can be useful to start discussions, but I'm not sure > > how much they solve. As Neil commented in another thread, setting > > (context) is important, and in such questions the setting is usually > > simplified. Sometimes I feel that such questions have the goal of > > setting up objective rules, which we hope free us from the individual > > responsibility of making a decision; 'I decided to do so, because > > that's the (moral) "law",' can be a personal cop-out. The subject > > cannot be reckoned out of the discussion. > > > One (simple) answer would be to apply the categorical imperative: > > "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time > > will that it should become a universal law." > > —Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals > > > If you like such questions, the following link is an interesting > > discussion of various aspects of "the Prisoner's Dilemma." It's not > > short, but the method of presentation (a SF story) makes it > > interesting: > >http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/three-worlds-collide.htm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
