Ever wonder how you should approach dating? The prisoner's dilemma helps answer the question.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a classic ethics problem. The prisoner's dilemma is set up as a case where our fate is tied to another, but we can't communicate with them. Two prisoners, who do not know each other, are brought in for questioning for a crime they are both innocent of. They are both given the same deal.
- If you confess to the crime you will be set free but only if the other prisoner does not confess. The other prisoner will spend 10 years on prison.
- If you confess and the other prisoner confesses then you will both get five years.
- If you don't confess and the other prisoner confesses you will get 10 years in prison and the other prisoner will be set free.
- If neither confesses, you will both spend 1 year in prison.
A detailed explanation is given in "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels, but the results are that you should confess to spend as little time in prison as possible regardless of what the other prisoner might do. If both do not confess then both would spend the least time in prison, but it is impossible to know if the other prisoner will confess. He is being given the same deal and is making the same logical conclusions. This sets up a system where acting in your own self interest results in the best solution for you whatever the other person does. Confess and you will spend either 5 years in prison or go free. But, benevolence provides the best total benefit for both: If both decided not to confess then you would both spend only one year in prison.
A prisoner's dilemma situation exists when two conditions are present: 1) we can't know what the other person is thinking or going to do and a person's interests are affected by what another person will do, 2) when acting in our own self-interest results in a worst result than if both parties did not act in their own self interest.
This is a classic dating paradigm. I can't really know what the other person is thinking or their intentions. I can always get material and physical benefits by acting solely in my self-interest and ignoring the interests of the other person. But, I can only get a long term relationship by acting in the best interests of the other party
if they also act benevolently. The key here is that both are acting benevolently in the interests of the other person without knowing them. Of course, I am only talking about the early parts of a relationship when both people are still trying to figure each other out. After a while it becomes easier to talk about what each other want out of dating and to determine if the other person is interested in a deeper relationship.
In the context of dating, women can "gain" dinners, free movies, drinks, trips, sex, companionship etc. and never expect to commit to a relationship. Men can get sex, companionship, arm-candy, (and what ever else men want) without ever committing to a relationship. But neither can gain the benefits of love and intimacy unless both act benevolently and make an emotional commitment or at least an honest effort to determine if such is possible.
You can set this up as a classic grid decision model below:
| Material Gain - Person 1 | Benevolence - Person 1 |
| Material Gain - Person 2 | No Intimacy | No intimacy |
| Benevolence - Person 2 | No Intimacy | Intimacy |
Based on the model above it would seem that the best option is only to act for personal material gain and never to act benevolently because only in 1 of 4 times will you be able to gain actual intimacy. Not so. This does not take into account the actual risks and benefits of the actions or the motivation of the people involved. It also assumes that the number of people who are in each category are necessarily equal. If all people were equally likely to either act materially or benevolently and the benefits, risks and motivations of each person were equal, then sure, we should all act selfishly.
But people have different perceptions of risks and benefits. Some people may be entirely risk averse and may never want to risk any emotional commitment for fear of being hurt. Some may always want to make an emotional commitment because the potential reward of being in an intimate relationship far outweighs any potential emotional harm. I think that most people who are trying to date, want that intimacy and will act benevolently in order to get it. If not, then none of the on-line dating sites would be able to stay in business. (ok, ok, so sometimes people are trolling, I guess I am an optimist).
I guess there is an age (young) when people are mostly dating for a fun experiences and not to settle down and form commitments (you know who you are), but then perhaps the grid above acts as a cautionary tale to those young kids who need to understand why they keep getting hurt. More caution is perhaps in order for people in their early 20's than any other group.
So what is the ethical solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma? The social contract. The social contract is the idea that most people in ordinary situations will try to act benevolently with the expectation that people will cooperate. What assurance do we have that this will take place? None really. The ethical solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma without the social contract is an enforceable agreement. That really can't happen in dating. The enforcement is the social stigma and gossip of routinely breaking the "social contract of dating" (just made that up). This doesn't really exist any more.
Most humans want emotional intimacy and understand that acting benevolently is in their long term interest. The only option that provides the possibility of a long term relationship is the riskiest: to trust other people who we have never met to act in our interests.
