fulltext - DiVA Portal

IntroductionRegardless of the kind of moral system one proposes, there is a needfor some practical justification. The question 'What is right?' isclosely followed by the questions "Why should I do what is right?'and 'Why should I expect others to do what is right?' These twoquestions of compliance are central if one's suggestion of moralsaims to be useful as social morality and not only a thought. ThomasHobbes termed the central moral agreement 'The Second Law ofNature", but the main theme of the article is to penetrate the problemHobbes called "Third Law of Nature". That is, it is not enough toreach a moral agreement - there is also a need for compliance to thismoral agreement.Since there is some interdependence between morality andcompliance, moral positions are most relevant for the discussion. Inthis article, the chief candidate is the position that moral principlesshould be built upon reciprocal agreement with the purpose ofenhancing individual self-interest. Such a moral position will bespecified for the case of the Prisoner's Dilemma.Self-interest is not only part of general human behavior, it is alsooften a reason for obeying rules. A prudent consideration ofpunishment is one reason for following the constraints of morality,but it is generally not considered enough. Even philosophers in therationaI mould as David Gauthier (1986, 1990) ask for more. True 'virtue and pure morality are generally seen as forces capable ofaccomplishing what is out of reach for prudence. However, there arereasons to doubt the wisdom of honoring virtue at the expense ofprudence.1 Different kinds of complianceA classic discussion centers around prudence versus morality withparticipants like Adam Smith and Henry Sidgwick. A centralcomponent in prudent behavior is guidance by self-interest whilemoral behavior is seen as determined by a strong sense of doingright. However, such a distinction does not give a clear-cut split intaIII: 2