Suppose you are offered $1000 to split with a random partner. You are each given two choices - "Cooperate" or "Defect"
(a) "Cooperate" - If you both cooperate, then you each get $500.
(b) "Defect" - If you both defect, then you each get $100.
(c) If you cooperate and your partner defects, you get $0 and your partner gets $1000, and vice versa.
YOU / PARTNER |
COOPERATE | DEFECT |
---|---|---|
COOPERATE | 500 / 500 | 1000 / 0 |
DEFECT | 0 / 1000 | 100 / 100 |
PAYOFF MATRIX
What should you do in this situation?
What should you do in this situation?
It is rational (in their own self-interest) for each player to defect, no matter what. Thus, we generally expect both players to defect, and to receive a payoff of $100.
But this is a worse outcome than if they had both cooperated! ($500)
The general problem
How is cooperation possible if it’s always in the interest of individuals to “free ride,” or cheat?
The general problem
General form of Prisoner's Dilemma:
(1) You Defect, Partner Cooperates
(2) Both Cooperate
(3) Both Defect
(4) You Cooperate, Partner Defects
Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma
What if you are able to play the game multiple times with the same partner?
Would your strategy change?
“Real Life” Cases
“Real Life” Cases
The general problem
It’s bad for all of us if we all free-ride, but it’s always good for each of us individually to free-ride.
How, then, is cooperation (society) possible??
Suppose we made an agreement (signed a contract), promising that we would cooperate, and agreeing to accept certain penalties if we don’t cooperate.
Such a set of agreements (i.e., “laws”) would ensure that people generally cooperate by punishing defectors.
Thus, we can think of society’s laws as a system of rules, and coercive methods of enforcement, that are justified insofar as they promote cooperation (in some respect), where a situation in which people generally cooperate is preferable to one in which people don’t.
Hobbes asks: What would society be like if there were no laws, enforcement, penalties, etc.?
“…no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
The result is “a constant state of war, of one with all”
Hobbes thought the state of nature was bad.
Therefore, as a society, we agree to abide by the rules of the society, in order to reap the benefits of social cooperation.
We sign a “social contract.”
Thus, we can think of morality as the set of rules that "make social living possible." We accept them because it is rational (i.e., in our interest) to accept them, on the condition that others accept them as well.
The "social contract" ensures that others will play by the rules as well.
It allows us to emerge from the state of nature and become rational members of society.
“PROS” of the theory:
“CONS” of the theory:
How can social contract theorists defend against these problems?
What does social contract theory say about civil disobedience?
Any problems for this justification of civil disobedience?
When does civil disobedience "cross the line"?
The following considerations weigh in favor of finding that an act of CD in a legitimate democratic state is morally permissible. First, the act is committed openly by properly motivated persons willing to accept responsibility for the act. Second, the position is a plausible one in play among open-minded, reasonable persons in the relevant community. Third, persons commit- ting an act of CD are in possession of a thoughtful justification for both the position and the act. Fourth, the act does not result in significant damage to the interests of innocent third parties. Fifth, the act is reasonably calculated to stimulate and advance debate on the issue.
In contrast, the following considerations weigh in favor of finding that an act of CD against an otherwise legitimate state is morally wrong. First, the act is not properly motivated or committed openly by persons willing to accept responsibility. Second, the position is implausible and not in play among most thoughtful open-minded persons in the community. Third, the people who have committed an act of CD lack a thoughtful justification for the position or the act. Fourth, the act results in significant harm to innocent third parties. Fifth, the act is not reasonably calculated to stimulate or advance debate on the issue.
The fact is that there are times when the only way to effectively advance a movement is through the use of violence. Sometimes, this necessity is clearly in reaction to particular act of state violence, other times it is due to more general circumstances. Either way, justifiable acts of leftist/working class violence are n act of self-defense insofar as the very institutions of the capitalist state inherently constitute continuing physical and psychological violence against the great mass of its people.
“Once the State moves to consolidate its own power, peace has already been broken.”
- Che Guevara
Anarchist Violence
More concretely, violence can be understood as absolutely necessary during certain phases of popular struggle.
This occurs when:
1. Nonviolent options have been explored yet no ostensible victory has been reached.
In the face of exploitation and oppression, inaction is akin to no action, and hence is tacit acceptance and support of those evils. In addition, the continued implementation of proven ineffectual tactics in the face of these evils must be considered akin to inaction, in that ineffectual tactics translates into the same end result; continued exploitation and oppression of the poor and working class by the hands of the ruling class, bourgeoisie and their lackeys. Thus, it would follow that there may arise circumstances, after the exploration of peaceful options, where the only ethical course available to a movement, or individual, is of a violent kind.
2. Whenever State oppression becomes violent, to the point where the movement itself or large segments of the population or the premises on which the people subsist are threatened with liquidation