Prisoner's Dilemma, in one part

Game Theory has this idea called the prisoner’s dilemma.  This involves a series of risk/reward categories between two people.  It is in both peoples’ interest to cooperate.   I ran into such a situation one night.  I was heading to the site for an upgrade around 11:30 PM.  The store was supposed to be open until midnight. 

I hit the stop light before the store, thinking I had the store close time off.  That has happened before.  I’ve seen sites that I thought closed at midnight close at 11. I drove up to the site, and noticed people still roaming around.  Good, now I won’t have to reschedule this upgrade.  Actor 1 in the prisoner’s dilemma.

And then the clerk tells me a story about how he’s been at work for 12 hours and he had to send his help home and more and more stuff.   The end result being he decided to close the store 30 minutes early.   Actor 2 in the prisoner’s dilemma.

So, now we have our two actors and the stage is set.  There is actor 1, who knows an infraction has taken place that will probably cost this person their job.  On the other hand, not reporting the incident could possibly cost me my job.  The third part of the equation is if neither of us would suffer any penalty if no one knew the store closed early.  

In this situation, I have the power to make or break the entire plan.   And thus, my choices are laid out.

1) Report the situation.  I suffer no consequence, and the person potentially loses their job

2)Don’t report the situation.  Get caught.  The person could lose their job, and I could lose my job or get reprimanded.

3) Don’t report the situation.  Don’t get caught.  No one suffers any consequences.

Logically, the best choice in the matter is option 3.  But logic doesn’t always dictate what should be done.  Logic also ignores morality.  

The morality of the situation can be described as thus: long ago I decided I would do the correct thing, regardless of what might happen to me.   The goal is simply to tell the truth at all costs, without wavering.  Logic without morals can take a long winding path to horrible places.

Logically, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, resources should be more allocated towards the needs of the many, and away from the needs of the few.  Perfectly reasonable, correct?   So what if that reallocation of resources is for healthcare?   The many are the generally healthy people born without long term cognitive or birth problems.  They are the many.  Those people born with birth defects are the few.  But in comparison to dollars spent, the people with birth defects consume a lot more money than those born without birth defects. 

Logically speaking, the money should be allocated towards the healthy and away from those born with birth defects.  But logic isn’t very nice when it comes to valuing human life.  And I value life too much to be too enamored with logic.  

In the end, I chose option 1.  Failure to follow policy is a choice by the person who closed the store early, and that knucklehead is not going to drag me into their problem.  Because if he had done what he was supposed to, there would be no problem.

Anyways…. 

Perhaps there will be a more uplifting post later. 

Or more Cisco notes.