If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Prison Dillema. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Prison Dillema paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Prison Dillema, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Prison Dillema paper at affordable prices!
Prisoners Dilemma Term Paper We live in a world where people do not always do the right, moral thing and sometimes have a tendency to look after themselves and their own first. In most cases, it is more important for a person to benefit from a situation regardless of the outcome for the other(s) involved. Self-interest motivates people's actions whether these actions appear moral or not. With this in mind, it seems almost impossible for cooperation to exist and to help improve a potential problem if one arises. However, we do know that cooperation does occur and that our civilization is greatly based upon it. It is the sovereign that controls people's actions and limits their personal self interests. The sovereign enforces cooperation to benefit society. But according to certain arguments placed by the Prisoner's Dilemma, the sovereign cannot succeed in limiting people's self-interest. People may ask themselves just how much assistance they would offer to someone who never helps them in return. For instance, a journalist who has received "gossip" news may give ample story coverage to the source in hopes that the source will continue "leaking" information. People want the best possible outcome from any situation, and usually will cooperate with others if it means gaining something in the future. But how much do people cooperate if they know nothing will be gained? Or how much do people not cooperate if they figure it can outsmart an opponent? These questions are brought up in one particular situation -- the Prisoner's Dilemma. Suppose the police accuse Jennifer and Bill of collaborating on a treasonous activity. The police proceed to lock Jennifer and Bill in two separate cells. They do this in order to prevent Jennifer and John from communicating with one another. Keep in mind that the police want to get an admission of guilt from either Jennifer or John. Accordingly, the police offer Jennifer the following deal If both you and John confess you will each get five years in prison. If you confess and John does not confess, you will go free and John will get 10 years in prison. If you do not confess and John does, he will go free and you will get 10 years in prison. If you both do not confess you will each get one year in prison. In turn, the police offer John the same options. This is the basic setup of the Prisoners Dilemma. According to these choices and reasoning through self interest what is the most logical option that John and Jennifer will choose? Jennifer reasons all she knows is that John will either confess or not. She sets up two scenarios. In the first, John chooses to confess. She reasons from this scenario that if she confesses, she'll get five years. If she doesn't confess she will get 10 years. Therefore, she should confess. In her second scenario, John chooses not to confess. She reasons from the second scenario that if she confesses she will go free. If she chooses not to confess she will get only one year in prison. Therefore, she again chooses to confess. No matter what John chooses Jennifer is better off if she confesses. John logically chooses to confess from the same reasoning. Jennifer and John each conclude that they should confess. Then here is the dilemma. It seems clear that they should each confess by the above reasoning. But by both of them confessing, they each get 5 years. Had they each not confessed, they would have gotten onlyyears. What went wrong? Really, nothing. That is why this is a dilemma. No error can be found in their reasoning. What is paradoxical is that by Jennifer and John doing what is in each of their best interests, they act contrary to their best interests. It is a remarkable result that Jennifer will be better off if she does what is not in her best interests and John will be better off if he does what is not in his best interests. A prime example of this basic problem of cooperation and self-interest is portrayed in the case where industrial nations have trade barriers on the other's exports. Since free trade offers many advantages, it would be better for both countries to drop any barriers. However, if only one party did this, it would encounter trade that hurt its own economy. So, whatever one country does, the other is better off retaining its own trade barriers. The problem is that each party has an incentive to keep barriers which leads to a worse outcome if both had just been willing to cooperate with the other. The philosopher, Hobbes offers a solution to this Prisoners Dilemma. Hobbes, a naturalist believes that each man desires whatever may preserve or enrich his own life. Every man works toward gaining what is in his best interest. Thus, the natural state of man is a state of war, in which every man is enemy to every man. Naturally, man will choose the option that fulfills his own immediate best interests, even if in the long run this choice will fail and will harm himself and others. As long as this state of nature endures, life remains insecure and wretched. There is only one way for man to escape this state of nature. Man should lay down his rights when other men are also willing to do so. These rights should be surrendered to one main sovereign or authority. Hobbes holds that this authority is not absolute. It is strictly conditional on other men being willing to obey them, and this requires an agreement of wills -- a contract. Everyone involved acknowledges that this authority acts on their own behalf. One man, or assembly, will thus bear the "person" of the whole multitude. The duty of this authority is to control the destructive actions of the people. This authority hinders man's best interests for the greater good of all the people involved. The development of authority, becomes necessary to bring order out of chaos. You can apply this authority figure to the Prisoner's Dilemma as well. An authority, a third party, working on the benefit of all parties, would tell both Jennifer and John not to confess. This third party would force them from a choice of ultimate best interest to one of greater good for all. The author, Hillel Steiner, of Mind, disagrees with the solution offered by Hobbes. Steiner believes that the intervention of a third party in the Prisoners Dilemma is an incorrect solution. Steiner explains, "that [the authority's] enforcement of such a policy...is alternatively inconsistent with...the truth of which The Dilemma and its putative resolution depend." (85) There are three main things on which uphold the assumed resolution of the Prisoners Dilemma. First, all persons involved pursue rational, self-interested strategies. Second, the enforcement of these strategies is needed to bring about a joint non-confession -- the optimal situation. Or, third, joint non-confession is the best situation for all persons involved. In the case of the Prisoner's Dilemma it is in the ultimate best interests of the prisoners to enforce the non-confession choice upon each other but not themselves. Thus, they must appoint an authority and somehow ensure that this authority will act in their best interest -- perhaps with a bribe. Though what if it follows that the authority is not interested in the bribe? The authority has nothing to gain and nothing to lose by enforcing the choices of the prisoners. This rationality is inconsistent with the first premise that upholds the resolution of the Prisoner's Dilemma that all people involved pursue rational, self-interested strategies. Alternatively, what if it is the best interest of the authority to enforce joint non-confession? If the authority acts in a rational, self-interested, manner then he will not enforce single non-confessions and will make this intention known to the prisoners. Then joint non-confession will occur spontaneously, despite the lack of enforcement. This is inconsistent with the second premise that upholds the resolution of the Prisoner's Dilemma that enforcement of these strategies is needed to bring about a joint non-confession -- the optimal situation. On the other hand, what if it is not in the best interest of the third party authority to enforce joint non-confession? The authority may fear punishment by the police who originally established the penalties. Furthermore, even if it is in the best interest of the authority to enforce joint non-confession, this option is not in the absolute best interest of the prisoners. For the prisoners, the ultimate choice in best interest is to confess and have the other not confess. This ensures that the prisoner goes free. Moreover, the police who set up the penalties assumed that the prisoners would confess. For them, joint confession, not joint non-confession would be the optimal choice. These situations, if correct, contradict the third premise that upholds the resolution of the Prisoner's Dilemma that joint non-confession is the best situation for all persons involved. If the Prisoner's Dilemma merely involves two parties then "it is a piece of unwarranted ad hoc-ery to introduce the considerations about a third party's interests." (86) Hobbes proposed that to end the Prisoner's Dilemma and ensure morality a third party, namely an authority must be introduced. Though he failed to consider that the authority is free from strategic, self-interested thinking as well. Work Cited Steiner, Hillel. Mind. "Prisoners Dilemma as an Insoluble Problem." XCI (18) 85-86. AFTERTHOUGHT In our last class we brought up the thought that philosophy is unique because it can be applied to all situations. Every major and field involves philosophy. I experienced this in my psychology class. While learning the concept of Social Trapping, (The idea that when placed in a group, people act out of their usual character) our professor subjected us to an experiment which raised issues of the Prisoner's Dilemma. First, he distributed pieces of paper to the class. Then he showed us a tin of cookies and a handful of quarters. He told every person to write down on the paper what you would prefer, a cookie or quarter. He explained to us that there is a catch. If over six people choose to have quarter then the entire class will not get anything, cookie or quarter. For the optimal situation to arise, the class would need to exercise cooperative arrangement. If majority chooses to have a cookie, then everyone will get something. One student even suggested to the class that everyone, for the greater good of the class, should choose cookie. When the papers were counted up the results showed that 16 people chose quarter, while 0 chose cookie. Thus, everyone lost and no one received anything. Most off the class assumed that everyone would hold in the joint cooperative arrangement. Especially since one student enforced this agreement by bringing it up to the class. But many people did not want to take the sucker's payoff in receiving a cookie when they would rather have the quarter. Therefore, almost half the class (including myself) took the free rider approach. This broke the collective arrangement and ultimately backfired against everyones best interests. Our professor told us that in the five years he has been conducting this experiment no one has ever gotten a cookie or quarter. It is people's nature to choose in their own self-interest. This nature applies to many situations in life, and I found it fascinating to see this philosophical situation introduced in my psychology class.
Please note that this sample paper on Prison Dillema is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Prison Dillema, we are here to assist you.Your persuasive essayon Prison Dillema will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
