You are right for the rationalist who gives substantial weight to the welfare of his or her lovers. But being rational doesn’t necessarily imply you that care much about other people.
A rationalist that doesn’t care about the welfare of their lovers and yet believes they have a duty to warn them about if they tested positive (but no duty to get tested in the first place, even if the cost is nonpositive)?
In my game theory class I teach that rational people will defect in the prisoner’s dilemma game, although I stress that you should try to change the game so it is no longer a prisoner’s dilemma.
Can this situation be modeled as a prisoner’s dilemma in a useful way? There seem to be some important differences.
For example, if both ‘prisoners’ have the same strain of herpes, then the utility for mutual defection is positive for both participants. That is, they get the sex they were looking for, with no further herpes.
You are right for the rationalist who gives substantial weight to the welfare of his or her lovers. But being rational doesn’t necessarily imply you that care much about other people.
A rationalist that doesn’t care about the welfare of their lovers and yet believes they have a duty to warn them about if they tested positive (but no duty to get tested in the first place, even if the cost is nonpositive)?
Are you advocating for prisoner defection?
In my game theory class I teach that rational people will defect in the prisoner’s dilemma game, although I stress that you should try to change the game so it is no longer a prisoner’s dilemma.
I hope you also talk about Parfit’s hitchhiker, credible precommitment and morals (e.g. honor, honesty) as one of its aspects.
I spend a lot of time on credible threats and promises, but I don’t do Parft’s hitchhicker as it doesn’t seem realistic.
Can this situation be modeled as a prisoner’s dilemma in a useful way? There seem to be some important differences.
For example, if both ‘prisoners’ have the same strain of herpes, then the utility for mutual defection is positive for both participants. That is, they get the sex they were looking for, with no further herpes.
Not prisoner’s dilemma, but successful coordination to which a decrease in the spread of HIV in the gay community is attributed: serosorting.