quote:
1. 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 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?
You know the one problem I have with the prisoner's dilemma is that ignores reality to much. Some of the underlying assumptions present in the philosophical problem like an assumed same background, underlying beliefs and desires of the criminals just doesn't nuance the situation enough. I mean in any given situation one criminal versus another criminal is going to have different motivations and or reasons for committing a given crime. And with that each criminal will experience a different set of loss or gains depending on the length of the sentence. I.e. if one has a family and the other doesn't the intrinsic motivation for each one based on family circumstances alone would argue for a more nuanced approach.
™ Version 4.2