Economics, Ethics and the Dilemma in the Prisoner's Dilemmas
Daniel G. Arce
Abstract
Daniel G. Arce
Abstract
This paper contrasts four distinct versions of the Prisoner's Dilemma (the commons, public goods, biological altruism, and biological selfishness) in terms of their ethical content for economic decision making. An argument is made for the restoration of Tucker's third player — as given in the original specification of the game — in order to judge whether a resolution is desirable in economic and business situations that reduce to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Finally, the use of tit-for-tat as a 'solution' to the Prisoner's Dilemma is compared with the practice of business ethics.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This paper contrasts four distinct versions of the Prisoner's Dilemma (the commons, public goods, biological altruism, and biological selfishness) in terms of their ethical content for economic decision making. An argument is made for the restoration of Tucker's third player — as given in the original specification of the game — in order to judge whether a resolution is desirable in economic and business situations that reduce to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Finally, the use of tit-for-tat as a 'solution' to the Prisoner's Dilemma is compared with the practice of business ethics.
Key concepts: Selfishness, Prisoner's dilemma, Superrationality, Dilemma, Argument (complex analysis), Public good, Altruism (biology), Commons