PHIL 150 1st Edition Lecture 10Outline of Last Lecture I. Antioxidant and redox regulation of gene transcription Outline of Current Lecture I. Hobbes’s ArgumentII. The Prisoner’s DilemmaIII. Morality as the Solution to Prisoner’s-Dilemma-Type ProblemsCurrent LectureRachels Chapter 6: The Social Contract TheoryHobbes’s Argument- Thomas Hobbes, the leading British philosopher of the 17th century, tried to prove that morality does not depend on God, natural purpose, or altruism- Morality should be understood as the solution to a practical problem that arises for self-interested human beings- Morality consists of the precepts we need to follow in order to get the benefits of social living- The State Of Nature: no government institutions- The four basic facts of human life: There is equality of need There is scarcity There is the essential equality of human power There is limited altruism- Life in The State of Nature would be intolerable- The Social Contract: people must agree on rules to govern their interactions- Social Contract theory explains the purpose of both morality and government The purpose of morality is to make social living possible The purpose of government is to enforce vital moral rules- MORALITY CONSISTS IN THE SET OF RULES, GOVERNING BEHAVIOR, THAT RATIONAL PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT, ON THE CONDITION THAT OTHERS ACCEPT THEM AS WELLThe Prisoner’s DilemmaThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- A problem invented by Merrill M. Flood and Melvin Dresher around 1950- Totalitarian government unrightfully charges you with treason for plotting with John Doe, they give you your four options If Doe does not confess, but you confess and testify against him, then they will release you. You will go free, while Doe will be put away for 10 years If Doe confesses and you do not, the situation will be reversed-he will go free while you get 10 years If you both confess, you will each be sentenced to 5 years If neither of you confess, then there wont be enough evidence to convict either of you. They can hold you for a year, but then they will have to let both of you go- Doe is offered the same options but you get no communication with him- No matter what Doe does, you should confess: Either Doe will confess or he wont Suppose Doe confesses. Then, if you confess you will get 5 years, whereas if you do not confess you will get 10 years. Therefore, if he confesses, you are better of confessing On the other hand, suppose Doe does not confess. Then, if you confess you will go free, whereas if you do not confess you will get one year. Therefore, if Doe does not confess, you will still be better off confessing Therefore, you should confess. That will get you out of jail the soonest, no matterwhat Doe doesMorality as the Solution to Prisoner’s-Dilemma-Type Problems- Either people will respect your interests or they wont- If they do respect your interests, you would be better off not respecting theirs, at least when that would be to your benefit. This would be the optimum situation-you get to be a free rider- If they do not respect your interests, then it would be foolish for you to respect theirs. That would land you in the worst possible situation-you get the sucker’s payoff- Therefore, regardless of what other people do, you are better off adopting the policy of looking out for yourself. You should be