Prisoner's Dilemma Matrix, Australia And The United States

This dilemma can be further analyzed through game theory, a common method to predict behavioural relations between agents. The decision to enforce stricter emission targets is identified within this model as a prisoner’s dilemma. Although two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it is within their best interests to do so, it creates a dilemma for both agents. Within all four possible worlds, there is a consistency with one cooperating and the other not. Although this cannot be solved, it can merely present a strategy in overcoming climate change.

Figure 1. Prisoner’s Dilemma Matrix, Australia and the United States United States
Australia Cooperate Doesn’t Cooperate Cooperate 2,2 3,1 Doesn’t Cooperate 1,3 4,4
Acknowledging that not all moral issues can be resolved by the individual’s compliance with rules is essential when criticizing philosophical inquiries (van Staveren 2007, p. 26, Walsh 2003, p.285). Limitations include situations where the choice is constricted by poverty, ignorance and situations regarding social bonds and norms and connection to industry. Finally, Kantian ethics is rather a universal concept, and restricts the ability to navigate perspectives through differing cultural and religious outlooks. Given the United States isn’t budding with as many scientific atheists in political positions like several other western nations, these groups pose a minority to the religious anti-progressive majority. If these scientific communities aren’t controlling policy, there are limited chances of fully overcoming and successfully implementing treaty agreements. As long term interests of citizens throughout the world aspire to limit emissions and curb the effects of climate change, the utilitarian state should create a sustainable future that benefits all citizens and be ready to comply with the global treaty. Game theory has proven a prisoner’s dilemma in working towards limiting and reducing carbon emissions for two agents who want the same outcome yet don’t want to get cheated for their good efforts. However, working for a better treaty is not a substantial commitment to alleviate the global climate issue at hand. The only correct behavior according to Kant, is to act today as if a better treaty already existed and persuade greater Greenhouse gas producers to follow