Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> What do the prisoner's dilemma and the allegory of the cave have in common?


Question: What do the prisoner's dilemma and the allegory of the cave have in common!?
Prisoner's dilemma:
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 ("defects") 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!?

Allegory of the Cave:
Imagine prisoners who have been chained since their childhood deep inside a cave: not only are their arms and legs immovable because of chains; their heads are chained in one direction as well so that their gaze is fixed on a wall!.
Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which puppets of various animals, plants, and other things are moved!. The puppets cast shadows on the wall, and the prisoners watch these shadows!. Behind this cave there is a well-used road, and upon this road people are walking and talking and generally making noise!. The prisoners, then, believe that these noises are coming directly from the shadows they are watching pass by on the cave wall!.
The prisoners engage in what appears to us to be a game: naming the shapes as they come by!. This, however, is the only reality that they know, even though they are seeing merely shadows of objects!. They are thus conditioned to judge the quality of one another by their skill in quickly naming the shapes and dislike those who play poorly!.


I feel like there's more philosophical constructs like these!. What connections/associations to all of you make!?Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Great question!

On the surface it seems as if there is very little connected between the prisoner's dilemma and Plato's Allegory of the Cave in "The Republic" other than "imprisonment!."

I believe the prisoner's dilemma is framed around game theory where the notion of "defecting" is the reward, that is, defection -not cooperation- allows for a "gain" to occur!. Next is the assumption of "rationality," where it is expected -within the parameters of game theory- that all players will act rational!. In theory that seems reasonable but at some level -let's say sitting in a cell awaiting a decision on whether there's enough evidence or not to make one the prime suspect over another, it must be obliged that "rationality" in fact may lose credibility!.

And, in my view, that is the hope of the authorities, that is, that neither suspect will act rational and defect from the offering of a reduced sentence for selling the other suspect out!. If we move from game theory to reality we see this is frequently the case !.!.!. one suspect sells out the other in hopes of a reduced sentence!. A "rational" response would be neither of the suspects selling out one another and -in spite of the threats of evidence and other verbiage to entice one suspect to sell out the other, both suspects remain quiet and neither gets a sentence higher than the other!.

In Plato's cave, the imprisonment represents all of humanity (prisoners) and the cave is our earthly existence (world)!. Reality is based on the shadows the prisoners see on the cave wall -that which is visible!. Plato then infers that for the prisoners (all of us) to rise above this ersatz reality, they (us) must move to the invisible where "reasoning" has the upper hand!.

And here is where -in my view- both stories seem to connect!. The imprisonment of the prisoner's dilemma is temporary -with the hope of freedom based on a condition!. If either prisoner responds "rationally" -using reason- then both prisoners elevate their chances for reduced (or no) sentences!. However, it seems that, in reality, suspects envision their best hope through selling out the other suspect (irrational)!.

In the cave those prisoners are destined to forever look at the wall and convince themselves that is reality as long as they viewed this relentless experience as the only reality (visible and visceral experience)!. However, the moment the prisoners can move from visible experience to more universal experiences (cognitive), then they begin to experience "reasoning" and, as such, their freedom!.

In both scenarios, the end-game is freedom !.!.!. in both cases, freedom for all is only attained by reasoning!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I think maybe in terms of an illlustration of hte very human llimitation of resisting change!. Tit for tat can be seen as the most effective - no lose situation but it doesn't ever take us forward into change it is a recipe for staying stuck -

The people in plato's cave choose not to grow and learn from one of their number breaking free and trying to persuade them to give up their chains!. They also choose stuckness over risk and responsibility for self!.

I guess both places are choice points to reveal the freedom of being human rather than a subaltern!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

Literally nothing is in common here!. If you think there is, I respectfully disagree!. I have known the allegory of the cave for a long time now very well!. I had to read the prisoner's dilemma twice to make sure, but I see no connections at all!. Once the prisoner in the cave breaks out, and tries to enlighten the other prisoners he is killed because of man's fear of the truth, or anything different!. The prisoners dilemma seems to be a test of personality, and a very conditional example!. gl!.Www@QuestionHome@Com