Re: [asa] prisoner's dilemma

*So is our morality really altruistic? Or just selfish at a higher
community
level? A wise pastor of mine once referred to it as "enlightened
self-interest".*

This is one problem with using game theory to assess "morality." Perhaps
none of the students are acting "morally." There needs to be a way to
separate "moral" actions from the "natural" or "typical" exercise of human
nature, which our Christian faith tells us is depraved. Game theory can't
supply that.

On 8/13/06, mrb22667@kansas.net <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
>
> Here is the original version as I remember it.
>
> Two suspects are apprehended for a crime. The state has a weak case and
> the
> prosecuting attorney is therefore hoping to get the suspects to testify
> against
> each other. They are taken to separate cells, and each are given this
> identical message: If you testify against your partner, but he refuses
> to
> testify against you, then you will go free and he will get the maximum
> prison
> sentence. However if you and he both testify, you will both serve long
> (but
> shorter than the maximum) sentences in prison for your crime. If both of
> you
> refuse to testify then you will both serv short prison sentences and then
> go
> free. Your partner is being given this same offer.
>
> Summary: both are tempted to go for the best outcome for themselves (to
> go
> free if they testify and the other doesn't). But since they will
> probably both
> do that, they will implicate each other and get the second WORST option
> (the
> long prison sentence). However if they could both just trust each other
> to
> hold out, they could both get the SECOND BEST option of serving the short
> sentence. But, unable to communicate, they just have to trust each other
> to try
> this option. What would you do?
>
> I like to modify this to a "rewards" scenario that I can have students
> pair off
> and do in the classroom. Each student in a pair can choose between two
> options, say "TRUST" or "GO FOR MORE". If one trusts & the other chooses
> to
> trample them, then the Go for more person gets 3 m&ms and the trusting
> person
> gets zilch. But if they both go for more, they both only get one.
> However if
> they both choose to trust, then they both get two. Do this scenario
> several
> times, and it is interesting to see the class dynamics. The totally
> trusting
> pairs will net more m&ms between them than any other option. But if your
> partner is trusting you, why not go for 3 m&ms instead of 2? And on it
> goes.
> So is our morality really altruistic? Or just selfish at a higher
> community
> level? A wise pastor of mine once referred to it as "enlightened
> self-interest".
>
> --merv
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 15 13:11:50 2006