As both have been partners in committing the crime

Info icon This preview shows pages 3–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
who chose simultaneously. As both have been partners in committing the crime, the optimal strategy for the two involved in the agreement would be not confess. If one confesses when the other does not, the one who does not will face more detrimental prosecution, while the other would be compensated and vice versa. The other choice, would be seemingly the dominant strategy, would be if both, in attempt to preserve one’s life, would confess in the hope of getting the lesser penalty. (King, Hobbes: The Social Contract). Still, the dominant strategy is not optimal strategy. The best consequence for the two would be to maintain their initial agreement they both began their partnership on. This cooperation takes place without the presence of the Leviathan, based on simple innate law that every living human makes their goal. This is further enforced in the fact that such a dilemma is not a one-shot event. Hobbes expresses that in cases where the state is not maintaining the existence of a state that enforces individual agreements, the more likely possibility of future interactions prevents. These repeated iterations can once again be expressed in State of Nature in the prisoner’s dilemma (King, Hobbes: Justice and Agreements). Maintaining the premise that “man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or taken away the means of preserving the same” (Hobbes, §14.3), it would be irrational to do act that otherwise. Within a leviathan, the agreements will be maintained out of fear of punishment. Where there is not an external agency available however, the exchange can be only carried out in two ways: both parties must perform the action
Image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
simultaneously or one may go before the other. (Hobbes, §14.5) If simultaneous, then both actions justify each other in the moment that the action takes place. If one party goes before the other, the possibility of future interactions as well as the reputation of an agreement breaker could potentially jeopardize the original rational law of nature, preservation of one’s own life (King, Hobbes: Justice and Agreements). Breaking the agreement with someone may be beneficial in the single interaction, but would prevent future ones from happening both with the individual and others. This would be detrimental as the individual may overpower the
Image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern