fulltext - DiVA Portal

For an analyst of games this sounds like a most dubious advise. Apartfrom being costly to the agent deliberately acting saintly, there is afurther problem. When one agent becomes a saint, another agentbecomes a free-rider. Regardless of the generous agent's intention, heis supporting asocial behavior. Even if ignoring his own east, he will,by accepting and supporting free-riding, undermine the expectedvalue for other agents of playing contribute. In a second shift thismight influence responsible individuals that are reciprocal blIt notaltruistic to reconsider their strategy to play contribute. Saintlybehavior is often described as a step from Non-cooperation towardsCooperatian, but seen in its social context it is often more likely to bea step from Cooperatian towards Non-cooperation. Furthermore, isthere not a lot more to say for symmetric Non-cooperation itself thanfor an asymmetric transfer from the giver to the taker?Even, if making the demanding assumption of general benevolence,the saintly strategy does not imply a general perfect solution. Thediscussed matrix is not necessarily the only game in social life.Mandeville and Adam Smith have both made a strong case for themechanism of private vices to public benefits. In striving for the owngood you produce more social good than if you make efforts to helpyour fellow man. The payoff of the upper left and the lower rightsquare might trade place.Figure 4contributePerson BdefectPerson AContributeDefect2;24; -1-1; 43; 3III : 12