Abstract
This paper clarifies some basic concepts or assumptions of the prisoner's dilemma, asserts the independence between the two agentsA andB, and advocates the application of the dominance principle of decision theory to the prisoner's dilemma. It discusses several versions of the prisoner's dilemma, including the one-shot and repeated cases of a noncooperative game from a purely egoistic point of view. The main part of this paper, however, is a study of the problem from a moral point of view through a special decision-theoretic approach. Morality is taken into account by incorporating the utility of the feeling of moral satisfaction for the agent, as a part of the total utility for the agent, into the decision-theoretic model. In this way the problem will appear as a purely technical decision problem, and the conflicts between various assumptions, or the dilemma caused by the problem, will no longer exist. It is also pointed out that in a more general case, for some values of the coefficient of moralityk, dominance will not exist so that the dominance principle will not be applicable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Axelrod, R.: 1986,The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York.
Campbell, Randall K.: 1989, ‘The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Symmetry Argument for Cooperation’,Analysis 49, 60–65.
Campbell, Richmond: 1985, ‘Introduction: Background for the Uninitiated’, inParadoxes of Rationality and Cooperation, Richmond Campbell and Lanning Sowden (Eds.), The University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 3–41.
Davis, Lawrence: 1977, ‘Prisoner's Paradox and Rationality’,American Philosophical Quarterly 14, 319–327.
Dickmann, A. and Mitter, P. (Eds.): 1986,Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior: Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport.
Friedman, J. W.: 1986,Game Theory with Applications to Economy, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gauthier, David: 1986,Morals by Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Hare, R. M.: 1981,Moral Thinking, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Rawls, John: 1971,A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Regan, Donald H.: 1980,Utilitarianism and Cooperation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Sheng, C. L.: 1986, ‘On the Flexible Nature of Morality’,Philosophy Research Archives 12, 125–142.
Sheng, C. L.: 1987, ‘Constraints on Utilitarian Prescriptions for Group Actions’,Theory and Decision 23, 301–316.
Sheng, C. L.: 1991,A New Approach to Utilitarianism: A Unified Utilitarian Theory and its Application to Distributive Justice, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sheng, C.L. A note on the prisoner's dilemma. Theor Decis 36, 233–246 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079929
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079929