Miller Blog Post 13

 In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference,’” Elizabeth Anderson explores collective action problems in the prisoner’s dilemma. In conceptualizing the prisoner’s dilemma, Anderson explores “solutions” to the problem; situations in which collective action succeeds and cooperation ensues. In this prisoner dilemma, a solution would entail the prisoners collaborating to both get less time rather than ratting the other out. 

The use of the word “solution” here raises interesting questions. To me, “solution” implies solving a problem; here, while the prisoners may be solving their problem, the general society may not be. In fact, society at large may have a new problem on its hands if guilty prisoners undermine the justice system by cooperating to lighten the sentences they deserve. Anderson acknowledges this issue when she writes that “not all committed action is desirable from a moral point of view. Recall that the original setting for the prisoner's dilemma involves two presumably guilty co-conspirators who have an interest in getting away with their crime … from a moral point of view, it would be better if either or both confessed to their crimes” (24). Thus, finding a “solution” to the prisoner's dilemma seems to in turn raise a new moral problem.

From this analysis of the prisoner’s dilemma, it becomes clear that not all “committed action is desirable from a moral point of view” (31). In some cases, solving the collective action problem leads to immoral ends. But in other cases, it seems as though solving the collective action problem could involve immoral means. Consider if the two criminals were separately asked if the other had committed the crime; to solve the collective action problem they would deny the other's illicit acts, thus lying. As we read in Shiffrin, lying in such a manner would be immoral in and of itself, whether or not it resulted in an immoral end (the criminals getting released from jail early). 

 Anderson provides a response to this issue of immoral cooperation, as she explores how to go from rationality to the morality of committed action. She explains that “if it would be rational for a collective encompassing all of humanity to adopt a certain principle of committed action, then action on that principle is morally right” (25). This seems to set a constraint on collaboration. If some instance of collaboration would not be rational if it was instituted as a maxim for all, then it is immoral. This gives a guide to how persons could permissibly collaborate and “solve” collective action problems in a society. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more